The Foreign Service Journal, August 1971
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AUGUST 1971 ■ SIXTY CENTS New Zenith TRANSOCEANIC obsoletes imitations with the finest integration of power, tuning ease, and professional features ever designed int the world's most famous radio! It’s powered to tune the world, this solid-state chassis; a Beat Frequency newest Zenith Trans-Oceanic. Oscillator (BFO) Control; RF Gain Con¬ Tunes bandspread on the most trol; “Norm-Sharp” IF Switch; Tuner Out¬ popular 31, 25,19,16, and 13 meter Inter¬ put Jack; Tuning Meter and a host of national Shortwave bands . also local features already acclaimed universally broadcasts on medium, FM, and Euro¬ for their overall dependability. pean Longwave... plus Marine, Weather, No wonder the list of owners of Zenith’s Ship-to-Ship and Ship-to-Shore trans¬ Trans-Oceanic portable radio reads like missions . Time Signals, FAA Weather an International “Who’s Who.” Works on Navigation . Amateur, CW, and SSB either 115V or 230V AC ... with up to 300 signals . and the new crystal-tuned hours of listening pleasure with “D” cell VFIF weather band broadcasts. batteries available anywhere. Also incorporated for the first time in Write now for free, full-color literature this latest in a series of world-famous featuring this most distinctive of all Zenith Trans-Oceanic portable radios: a new Trans-Oceanic portable radios! The new Zenith Trans-Oceanic Royal 7000-1 is available at Post Exchanges overseas. The Quality Goes In Before The Name Goes O/J® 2enlth Radio Corporation, International Division, Chicago 60639, U.S.A. The Royalty of television, stereophonic high fidelity instruments, phonographs, and radios. F1IEIM m'JoiHUjil AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION AUGUST, 1971, Volume 48, No. 8 THEODORE L. ELIOT, JR., President JOHN E. REINHARDT, First Vice President C. WILLIAM KONTOS, Second Vice President BOARD OF DIRECTORS 12 American Overseas Investment WILLIAM HARROP, Chairman Samuel F. Hart F. ALLEN HARRIS, Vice Chairman ERLAND HLGINBOTHAM, Secretary-Treasurer 15 Ship Afire! BARBARA GOOD, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer DONALD EASUM J. W. Schutz JOHN K. IVIE DAVID W. LOVING PRINCETON LYMAN 17 Perspectives on Reform: Part I MICHAEL PISTOR Smith Simpson JOHN C. SCAFE THOMAS M. TRACY JAMES D. WILSON 20 Life as a Russian Worker: Part III Richard H. Sanger STAFF JAMES K. PALMER, Executive Director 26 Anchor Man of the Department: Alvey Augustus Adee MARGARET S. TURKEL, Executive Secretary R. Gordon Arneson CLARKE SLADE, Educational Consultant JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD 29 Diplomatic List Charles and Lisa Cerami CLINT E. SMITH, Chairman AMBLER MOSS, Vice Chairman M. TERESITA CURRIE OTHER FEATURES: On Speaking the Language, by Ginny Car- JOHN D. STEMPEL MICHAEL P. CANNING son, page 6. FREDERICK QUINN RALPH S. SMITH JOURNAL DEPARTMENTS SHIRLEY R. NEWHALL, Editor MCIVER ART & PUBLICATIONS, INC., Art Direction 2 Communication from the AFSA Board ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVES JAMES C. SASMOR, 295 Madison Ave., New York 32 The Bookshelf N.Y. 10017 (212) 532-6230 ALBERT D. SHONK CO., 681 Market St., San Francisco Calif. 94105 (415) 392-7144 42 Letters to the Editor JOSHUA B. POWERS, LTD., 5 Winsley Street, Londoi W. 1. 01-580 6594/8. International Representatives 45 AFSA News ©American Foreign Service Association, 1971 Th< Foreign Service Journal is published twelve times i hy the American Foreign Service Association 2101 E Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20037. PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS: ‘'Bornu,” by Richard F. Second-class postage paid at Washington, D. C. Wolford, cover; Richard H. Sanger, photographs, pages 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25; S. I. Nadler, “Life and Love in the Foreion Printed by Monumental Printing Co., Baltimore Service,” page 44. THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL is the journal of professionals in foreign affairs, published twelve times a year by the American Foreign Service Association, a non-profit organization. sZZXZSXiZ £3*.ft--- »“■ - — members with incomes over *15.00o”*?5 annual”"^ to* thin MemberS~Dues are 530 annuaHf tor 00: tW yearS 510 For postage ,Pt‘°n “ JOU*NAL’ °De year 02 iSSUeS): SC' ° ’ °°' ‘Ascriptions going abroad, except Canada, add $1.00 annually for oversea. Communication from the AFSA Board dependent bodies and individuals (e.g., the Federal La¬ bor Relations Council, Impasses Panel, the Assistant Sec¬ July 6, 1971 retary of Labor). The agency head is automatically in the position of be¬ Honorable Robert E. Hampton ing on the side of management. The adversary relation¬ Chairman, Federal Labor Relations Council ship arises from the “outside" and the fact that the Sec¬ Dear Mr. Chairman: retary is an integral part of the management with whom the employees negotiate. Hence, it can be eliminated by With reference to my letter of June 16, I have the eliminating “outside” appeals, removing the Secretary honor to submit an analysis of the draft Executive Order from the negotiation table and making him part of the transmitted to you on June 16 by the Department of appeals process. State. I also enclose an alternative draft Executive Order “Inside” appeal, such as envisioned for the Foreign prepared as a model by the American Foreign Service Service, separates the agency head from the management Association. officials with whom the employee organization (or or¬ The Association is convinced that the overwhelming ganizations) negotiate (or consult). Neither the person, majority of Foreign Service employees want a system nor the prestige, nor the influence of the agency head is which allows employees to choose by majority vote committed on the side of management. It is only subse¬ whether they shall be represented by an exclusive organi¬ quently, when no agreement between employee organiza¬ zation or not. AFSA feels that it would be a mistake to tion and management officials is reached, that the agency impose on the Foreign Service an employee-management head enters the picture. He, by remaining apart from the system which the employees believe denies them this prior proceedings, has no interest in being either on the basic right. This is the central weakness of the agency side of his managers or on the side of his employees in draft Executive Order. Without a single employee repre¬ every case. The dispute is presented to him by an im¬ sentative, other elements of the agency draft seem to us partial staff and his decision can be made impartially. unworkable, particularly the concept of “consultation This new proposal thus avoids any “adversary” rela¬ and appeal.” tionship between the Secretary and the Foreign Service, We share many of Deputy Under Secretary Macomb- or between the Director of USIA and the Foreign Service. er’s views on the nature of the Foreign Service, as ex¬ The Association is prepared to accept an in-house em¬ pressed in his letter to you of June 16. Specifically, we ployee-management system if it provides a balance of agree that the “rank in person” concept, the high degree power and responsibility between subordinate agency of mobility in personnel assignments and the centralized management officials, on the one hand, and employees on administration of the Foreign Service require that em¬ the other. Unfortunately, the State/AID/USIA draft does ployee participation be based on a unit no smaller than not provide such a balance. It denies employees the right the foreign affairs agency-—indeed, we would take that to decide how they shall be represented, including the argument to its logical conclusion and base participation right, by a majority of employees voting, to elect a single on a unit including the entire Foreign Service. organization as their exclusive representative, with the We agree that there is no clear-cut disparity between responsibility of aggregating employees’ various special supervisors and non-supervisors in the Foreign Service, interests and articulating and defending them in dealings and welcome the elimination of the concept of “super¬ with management. This is a fundamental principle of em¬ visor” from management’s draft. We are not seeking an ployee relations in the American private sector and under annual contract relationship. E. O. 11491. In thus making it difficult for employees to We agree that there are sometimes questions of special unite on a program and strategy, the draft divides and interest to particular groups of employees; it appears to weakens employee representatives at the conference table us that paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) of Section 4 of the in comparison to the monolithic and disciplined manage¬ agency draft provide adequate protection to individuals ment. and groups against any danger that an employee organi¬ The multipartite consultation and appeals which man¬ zation would ignore their views or cut them off from agement proposes as a “practical alternative” to exclusive access to agency management and the appeals body. recognition would, we believe, promote competitive mili¬ However, we believe that management has greatly ex¬ tancy among employee organizations, reduce the likeli¬ aggerated—in fact, misunderstood—the prospects of im¬ hood of management-employee agreement on personnel pairment to the “special mission” of the Foreign Service policies, and lead to an excessive resort to appeals pro¬ because employees might come to look upon foreign cedures. affairs agency heads as adversaries in personnel policy We understand that such a multipartite system was matters. tried unsuccessfully in American municipalities in the The Foreign Service requested exemption from E. O. ’30s and ’40s, and that the failure of the similar concept 11491 because the provisions of 11491, it