Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") outlined the demerits of cutting the salaries of diplomats deployed beyond the beltway (and the borders).
Money quote(s):
"Government Executive has an excellent piece on the spending bills before Congress and what this could mean for the Foreign Service.These bills would cut my pay by 16% while I am overseas, on top of the fact that my pay is already frozen for the next two years at least."
Anecdotally, most FSOs I've spoken with understand the necessity for freezing government worker's pay, particularly in an economic environment where many Americans have lost their jobs or otherwise lost ground economically. Nobody's crazy-happy about it (who would be?), but the political necessity, the optics of it, are apparent enough.
Also, the pay freeze simply means that pay rates stay the same; no across-the-board salary increases of some percents or so. Individuals can still advance by promotion or longevity pay to higher pay grades; it's just that those pay grades remain constant for two years.
On the other hand, decreasing, by 16 percent, the pay of FSO serving abroad (while leaving that of those in Washington intact) doesn't pass the smell test.
"Yes, we get free housing overseas. But we still have our mortgage to pay at home. And renting our place doesn't cover that."
"Free" housing overseas is one of those areas where the Foreign Service is more like unto the military (and naval) services than is the Civil Service.
(Caveat: CAA has been a member of not only the Foreign Service and military service, but was also in the Civil Service for several years.)
(Note: There are actually three foreign services; those of the State Dept., USAID, and the Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA. For CAA purposes, assume "Foreign Service" refers to that of the State Dept.)
Most Civil Service folks (there are exceptions, e.g., DIA, FBI, &tc.) are appointed into a position for which they qualify and stay there. Their "rank" is by position, not by individual. And they can stay in that job until the heat death of the universe without penalty; they get promotions by competing for (and being hired into) jobs at a higher grade.
A consequence of this is that, compared to the foreign and military services, is much less geographical mobility. In each of the cases, this is not a bug, it is a feature. Foreign Service and military members expect to move around during their careers; Civil Service much less so.
So, like for military members, housing (or a housing allowance) is provided for Foreign Service members, but only when stationed or deployed abroad.
Military folks get their housing allowances no matter where they are stationed; this is not a complaint, merely a statement of the reality.
Something like 99 percent of FS jobs are in the D.C. area. There are passport centers, diplomatic security field offices, and some facilities that support State operations located beyond the beltway, but the Department's center-of-gravity in terms of personnel is Washington, D.C. This has been true since long before the Department took up residence in Foggy Bottom.
Granted, the decision to buy (or not) a home is an individual one. The government doesn't make FSOs buy houses. That being said, if in the course of your career you're going to be overseas two-thirds of the time and spend the remaining third of your working life in a single metropolitan area, then you're an idiot (or have another plan involving a place to retire to elsewhere) if you don't invest in owning your own residence there. Otherwise you're just micturating your money away on rent rather than building some equity.
"Because most in the FS are not tandem couples like M and I, going overseas means the loss not just of that 16% but of one spouse's ENTIRE income. Most spouses who work in the states have a limited ability to do so overseas, and even when they do, it is for substantially less pay.
Especially for those with children, this is an nearly impossible loss to bear.
None of us mind sacrificing for the country. We know that this is part of the nature of our service. We willing leave our homes, our stability, our families, for the good of the country."
The days of Leave It To Beaver stay-at-home spouses as the rule stopped being true for middle class couples and families as a consequence of the sexual revolution. No big surprises there. As often as not (there are still lots of single-income families out there) though, university-educated couples tend to be two-income couples.
College-educated persons tend to marry other college-educated persons.
It shouldn't be any surpise that at least 98/99 percent of FSOs have at least a university degree (and that 100 percent of FSO have at least some college).
One of the consequences (for good or bad) of Foreign Service life is the difficulty FS spouses (of either sex) have in finding gainful employment during the course their FSO spouse's career. There's been lots of progress made in this arena in terms of creating opportunities for FS spouses to work, where appropriate, in our overseas posts. Even in D.C. this is a problem, in large part because FSO will generally only serve for two years at a stretch in the U.S. before going back overseas for three (or more) years.
This works out to a huge bite out of an FS couple's lifetime earnings compared with similarly-educated/credentialed persons working in the U.S.
I mention this not so much to complain as to explain why nickel & diming FS families on their primary income becomes so significant; much of the time it will be their only income.
"(W)hen you carve out 16% of our pay, bear in mind that the senior levels of the Foreign Service do not experience this cut. The other agencies serving with us at post do not experience this cut. The military and their civilian employees do not experience this cut. Their base salaries are their DC salaries, not some fake base salary with DC locality pay.
It is only those of us in the mid and lower levels who must take a pay cut to serve you overseas."
Shockingly, when Senior Foreign Service (SFS; the Foreign Service's "flag officers") compensation was "reformed" so that D.C. base pay was incorporated, much of the steam seemed to go out of Department's leadership in terms working to get that accomplished for the lower and middle-ranking FSOs.
Fancy that.
All snarking aside, the issue was (at long last) addressed just a few short years ago and a three-step phase-in was begun to bring overseas compensation in line with D.C. pay so that diplomats would not actually have to take a pay-cut in order to serve overseas.
That's right. Diplomats take a pay-cut (to their base pay) when they leave Washington, D.C., and deploy abroad to serve their country.
As a one-time Business Administration major, this kind of financial disincentive scheme leaves me nearly speechless at its utter counter-intuitive idiocy.
Now, to give the whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth, many overseas assignments bring with them certain other pay allowances, such as cost-of-living allowances, hardship allowances, and danger pay. But it still never made any sense that someone leaving D.C. would have go to a post where hardship and danger pay allowance exceeded 2o percent or more just to break even.
So that's what Digger's talking about.
10/7
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") explained the motivation.
Money quote(s):
"Nobody joins the Foreign Service to get rich.
We join for a miriad of reasons, but scratch most of us in the Foreign Service and you will find a deeply patriotic American.We endure harsh conditions in war zones and other inhospitable places. We endure separations from our loved ones, sometimes for years. We endure diseases and environmental conditions most Americans would never consider subjecting their families to."
"Rich." (That's rich.)
Excuse me if Digger's recitation of FS working/living conditions may sound (to some readers) like whining, but it's simply a factual relating of the facts. American diplomats deploy on multi-year tours around the world, not just to the handful of countries most military veterans will be familiar with.
(And we take our families with us.)
Often that's simply a good thing, but it is not an unalloyed "good thing."
"We serve because we believe. We believe in this country. We believe in serving it. We believe that in order to be strong, this country needs both military and diplomatic strength."
Students of strategy will recognized that Digger has correctly identified two of the elements of national power present in DIME.
11/8
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") offered some enormously practical advice for FS folks on the move.
Money quote(s):
"(I)t is important to get a list from your post of what is in your welcome kit and to find out whether you get to keep it until your HHE arrives. Because if you have to return it once you get your UAB, that changes everything."
HHE (or HHB) = Household Effects/Baggage. This is the stuff that gets to you by "slow boat" via China (unless you're going to China; in those cases, your HHE is routed via Tierra Del Fuego).
UAB = Unaccompanied Baggage. This is stuff that gets air-freighted to you (from you, before you leave) and, ideally, gets where you're going within a few days of your arrival. It's to tide you over between what's in your actual luggage and the arrival of your HHE.
(On one occasion, my UAB was already at post, at my new house in fact, before I myself arrived. That was way cool.)
A "welcome kit" is each post's idea of what you'll need to get by in your new home until your own stuff arrives. It typically includes pots and pans, dishes and flatware, sheets and towels, &tc.
"Check with your post about whether the welcome kits include a tv...this could be vital if you have kids (I don't but I still want one. My post actually includes a tv, but I am probably bringing mine in the UAB anyway if I have the weight). Also bring toys and maybe some favorite snacks for your kids and pets. It will ease their adjustment. I am also bringing sheets, pillows and towels. Yes, the embassy provides those, but I bet they won't feel as nice as the ones you sleep on at home. In fact, I actually mailed myself a set of sheets and a mattress pad (embassy bedding is notoriously uncomfortable, at least in my experience. I am actually bringing my own bed, and I am putting a set of sheets for it in my UAB so that I don't have to unpack all of my HHE before I can make the bed when it arrives.)"
Okay, so you're getting the idea, perhaps, that a Foreign Service deployment isn't exactly like a military one, and you'd be correct. It's somewhat more akin to a PCS move to Germany/Italy/Korea/Japan would be for military folks, IF military folks PCS-ed to Upper Revolting, Carjackistan, and Lower Slobovia on a regular basis (and some, defense attache types, do). You're moving. You're moving your household (kids, spouse, pets, &tc.) every 2-3 years, and trying to make each little homestead your honest-to-gawd home every time.
It's a little more complicated than "home is where you hang your hat." You want a safe harbor, a refuge, where you can unwind from whatever the stress-du-jour at the embassy turns out to be on each given day. And your spouse/kids need a home. Especially if you're trying to raise your world-vagabond offspring to be honest-to-Heck Americans, without the benefit of raising them in their own country for much of their childhoods.
As I've occasionally mentioned to Madam-At-Arms, my home is where she (and the Wee Consular Beastie) is/are. That's the bottom line for me. When I get home from a jail/morgue visit, or from spending the day identifying plane crash victims, I like a little homelike space where I can take a slug of Kentucky sour mash before I actually have to tell her about my day at/out-of-the- office.
(Of course, when I headed for the whiskey shelf as item #1 of my just-got-home checklist, she pretty much already knew where I'd spent my day.)
"And of course my electronics...though they will be in my carry on...my computer, ipad, kindle (gotta have books!), ipod (gotta have music!)...plus all of my important documents, like passports, animal health certificates, etc, will be in my carry on."
Superlative advice about the things which you really don't want to let get further than arm's reach during an international move. Bravo!
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") shares an instance of giving credit where credit's due.
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") and I don't agree about everything. In fact, we differ profoundly (if respectfully) on some social issues.
But she nails this.
Money quote(s):
"As with most decisions I make, the reasons behind my decision to join the Foreign Service were complicated. Among them of course was that my wife was in the Service. But bin Laden was a deciding factor too...after 9/11, I wanted to serve my country. And as an out lesbian, military service was not an option.
So I am glad he is dead...I know that while this has cut the head off the snake, the danger continues. I pray for the safety of all those serving our country now."
Western Civilization, including our little corner of it here in Los Estados Unidos, is a fairly big tent. And I welcome those willing to serve to keep the tent poles upright, the lines untangled, and pegs firmly in the ground.
That applies as much to our colleagues in uniform, to those serving around the world in our Intelligence Community, as well as to those of us willing to serve as roustabouts in our Foreign Circus, er, Service.
"He is (was) a spoiled rich kid. He sent poor muslims off to die in the service of a jihad that most muslim leaders reject. He never took a risk to his own life to carry out his murderous plans.
And so all this time, while we had an image of him living in caves, an image that no doubt served him well among his followers, many of whom actually are living in caves and other lives of desparate poverty, he was actually living in a million dollar mansion.
He had excellent security and was in town and a mere 60 miles from Islamabad. He was not living a life of hardship, but he used the lives of hardship of his followers to carry out his plans with no personal risk to himself."
This is not a leadership model I would recommend.
"(T)here are those who will decry this action, who will say all war is wrong.
I am a believer in diplomacy, in negotiation. I believe soft power must go hand in hand with hard power, that we can save lives by better funding the diplomatic corps so we can fight fewer wars. But I don't think we can ever hope to stay out of all wars.
Because I believe Hitler would have continued his evil plans to wipe all Jews from the face of the earth had it not been for war. I am not convinced that slavery would have ended without war."
Violence never settles anything except for those things that only violence will settle.
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") draws our attention to a Washington Post article.
Money quote(s):
"It talks about the difference between the ways military veterans who die in the service of the country and civilian employees who die serving, often in the same places, are treated.
While Congress dictates the way fallen soldiers are treated, it is left to the agency where the fallen civilian worked to decide how, and WHETHER, the employee is honored."
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") highlights rudeness and incivility in high places.
Money quote(s):
"Coburn's reaction to overseas comparability pay is particularly infuriating..."it's going away." How someone who is supposed to represent Americans and who certainly benefits from the Foreign Service, particularly when he travels overseas, can be so glib about handing us a 24% pay cut is beyond comprehension.
I certainly hope that the next time he travels overseas, he travels economy class, because in his words, "we just don't have the money." And I hope he gets very little assistance from post, because he doesn't seem terribly interested in us."
Well, that's not too likely to happen.
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") notes a recent Washington Post article you should read.
Money quote(s):
"This piece is exactly the kind of story the State Department and AFSA need to be getting out.
Our biggest problem, the reason we keep being the whipping boy for the budget cutters, is that we are no ones constituent. We are small and not well understood, so that makes us an easy target.
These kinds of stories help the American public get a better idea of the challenges we face."
We're small, elite (and perceived as elitist, which is even worse), deployed in dribs and drabs all over the world so we're out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind, not concentrated in any one congressional district, and we don't have big bases all around the country where we're stationed when we're not abroad.
When we're "home," 99% of the time that means we're in D.C., where we (deliberately) blend in with all the other government employees, riding the Metro to work and clogging the line at Starbucks.
"We have an awesome, exciting job that we are priviledged to get to do. We also have a frightening, challenging job that demands great personal sacrifice.
America needs to know."
It is an awesome job, often exciting and frequently meaningful.
I wouldn't trade it, and the chances its given me to "make a difference" for all the world, but.... it's still not fair to single us out for a 24% pay cut when we have the affrontery to actually deploy overseas to do our jobs.
Who else in government and military service does that?
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") explains, as if to a child.*
Money quote(s):
"Because it isn't enough that our pay has been frozen AND that we may have to endure a government shutdown, now we have to take a pay CUT in order to serve overseas. Just an example, our folks serving in Libya make 5% LESS than they would in D.C. Yes, really.And to be clear, this is not a pay raise. It is rectifying a pay CUT. And it is only the mid-level foreign service that takes this pay cut. People serving at our missions overseas with other agencies do not. Neither do members of the Senior Foreign Service."
As a business model, how much sense (if any) does it make to disincentivize the nation's diplomats (except for the Senior Foreign Service, the FS equivalent to generals and admirals) from taking overseas assignments?
Yes, it's an honor to serve.
Yes, there are tens of thousands of people taking the FS exam every year just dying to get into the Foreign Service.
It still makes no sense to penalize the lowest paid of the Foreign Service if they're foolish enough to go abroad to do the nation's business.
"I bet they could save more than that by making the Congressmen and their staffers fly economy class like the rest of us."
I guess that means the Air Force wouldn't need quite so many VIP jets.
_____
Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") isn't entertained by talk of a government shutdown.
Money quote(s):
"I love this country. I am honored to be able to serve it.
But I can not serve it for free.
Don't get me wrong, I love my job."
&
"(W)e are real Americans. We work real jobs. And let me tell you, most days, you get more than your nickle's worth out of all of us. Even in language study, I put in my time, because the government needs me to be able to speak this language to effectively serve our country overseas. And in my last two assignments, those eight hours you paid me for each day were much more like 14-16. But I don't get overtime because I am a salaried, not hourly, employee. And I am fine with that.
The truth is that most federal employees are hard workers who are not overpaid. True, those who are in blue collar federal jobs may make more than their private sector counter parts. But those of us who are not blue collar typically earn 25% less than our private sector counterparts."
