re: "Spending bills threaten Foreign Service pay and hiring"

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

re: "House bill cuts locality pay for Foreign Service officers overseas "

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.

_____

*

re: "Overpaid?"

Four Globetrotters ("The (most likely) incoherent ramblings of a sleep-deprived single mother living overseas with her trio of kiddos.") weighs in on the pay freeze and on what they couldn't pay you to do (you don't do some of the things consular officers have to do for the money).

Quote(s):

"A fringe benefit of the Wikileaks scandal is that Americans are getting to see first hand what we in the Foreign Service do.

I'm actually ok with this pay freeze. This is a tough time for all Americans, and I'm happy to do my part. And of course, I recognize that in this economy I'm extremely lucky to have a job I love, and one for which I am compensated adequately. But overpaid? Not by a long shot."

&

"(T)hose of you who are in the process of joining the Foreign Service deserve to have as complete a picture as possible about the job you are about to enter. You need to know what might one day be asked of you."

Read her story here.

This is why the Foreign Service is not, despite her phrasing, a job. It is a profession. FSOs are commissioned officers of the United States of America, albeit not military officers, charged by Congress and by the president with certain responsibilities and certain authorities so they may discharge their duties successfully. Moreover, the Foreign Service is more than a profession, just as being a professional military officer is more than a profession; it is a vocation or calling. If you don't hear the call, I can't tell you what it sounds like.

Many foreign service officers, particularly consular officers, can tell you similar stories to this one. I know I can. Mine isn't as horrific as hers, but I' m patient and know that I, or someone very much like me, will be there to do what needs to be done when the time comes to do it. And the time will come, as it always does, in some remote reach where no one ever thinks to see an American consular officer.

Don't worry, one will get there, as soon as one can be gotten there.

There are times where you can't make things better, not one bit; the best you can do is do the things that have to be done, the necessary things, and try to keep things from getting any worse than they already are.

So you do everything you can think of doing, you call everyone you can think of needing to call, and then you go home.

If you're lucky (and I was), you'll have someone at home who can just be there for you as you try to process and decompress enough to get on with the next things that need to be done, the very next day at work. Because they are our countrymen and countrywomen, our fellow Americans, and the whole reason they put us in all these out-of-the-way places and pay our salaries really isn't to interview all those visa applicants and issue all those passports.

Those are just the things you do to fill the time between gut-wrenching heartbreak and going to the morgue or the crash site. They're how you gain letter-perfect knowledge of the applicable laws, authorities, and regulations, so that when crunch time comes, you're ready to act confidently and with dispatch. They're how you make all those personal contacts and fill your Rolodex, so that when you need to reach out for a favor or a service, your call gets answered and your request is granted.

In the final analysis, that's why Hillary and Colin and every secretary of state going back to Ben Franklin has sent us abroad, to do the necessary things our countrymen need us to do, when they simply can't do them for themselves anymore.

Please go over to Four Globetrotters and tell her "Thank you."

_____

Hat tip to Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe").