U.S. State Department Denies Collective Bargaining Rights to their Own Employees while Promoting Worker Rights

IFPTE was approached by the International Foreign Service Association (IFSA) earlier this year, a group of U.S. State Department (State) locally employed staff (LES), to see if we could assist them in addressing some of their issues, in particular State's blanket denial of their right to engage in collective bargaining (see State's Foreign Affairs Manual, 3 FAM 7295). LES are a mix of local foreign nationals and Americans who are employed by State to operate U.S. embassies and consulates throughout the world, as well as work on State's mission and objectives. Overall, LES are seeking an egalitarian workplace in which they can exercise the same workers' rights as their colleagues in the U.S. Foreign and Civil Service.



State has ignored some of the major addresses impacting LES, such as a lack of an Ombudsmen covering LES issues, even though State's own Office of Inspector General has advocated for such a policy. Worse, State will not recognize or deal with IFSA in any dialog about these issues claiming the IFSA looks too much like a union. Ironically, State recognizes collective bargaining as a human right, along with the United Nations, and a number of LES actually collect data and put together reports on worker rights of various countries while being denied those same rights.



IFPTE approached Senator Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), knowing he has a strong commitment to collective bargaining rights. The SFRC in turned approached State to have them explain this internal policy that denies collective bargaining rights for LES, as well as set up a meeting so we could engage State on a possible solution given the complexity in trying to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement for over 40,000 employees throughout the world all at once. Instead, State refused to meet with us, and their Chief Negotiator wrote an extremely offensive letter claiming that allowing LES to activate their right to engage in collective bargaining would represent a national security risk.



The following is our critique of State's August 9, 2013 letter to IFPTE.

With regard to State's claim that collective bargaining represents a national security and intelligence threat: What changes take place that turns a LES into a security threat when they associate among themselves in order to collectively bargain with their employer (State) over limit issues concerning State's employment or related policies? How can they be a security threat, especially when U.S. Foreign Officers have collective bargaining rights and they have greater access to secure documents and information? If LES are a national security threat then why hire them in the first place?



It is disconcerting that State is selectively picking which human rights will be respected on U.S. soil overseas, and justifying failure to accord those rights by claiming that the issue is that not all nations recognize collective bargaining. For example, does State have a policy that women cannot work as LES given some nations do not value or treat women as equals?



State's position that existing LES associations are an effective way of bringing issues to their attention is not accurate. The biggest issue LES have is that they have no means of getting the attention of State management officials at HQ. Instead, they can only deal with local management who either can choose to listen or completely ignore their employees. More importantly, even when Ambassadors or Senior Staff are sympathetic to issues raised by Local Employees, their ability to respond is extremely limited since the major source of the majority of local problems are policies or the lack thereof coming down from State HQ. In those instances where an issue arises at post and not in Washington, there is no access to an Ombudsman to resolve an issue or determine the legality under the Foreign Affairs Manual of the policies adopted at the post. As the OIG has noted, there is a fundamental conflict of interest in this situation.



Remove State's internal policy denying collective bargaining rights [3 FAM 7224.2-4(b)/7295(a)] and automatic dues deduction [3 FAM 7224.2-4(d)/ 7295(d)] for LES

Recognize IFPTE-IFSA as the representative body of LES for the purposes of advocating and negotiating solutions with State

Grant IFPTE-IFSA representatives the time and the means to engage in dialog and negotiate memorandums of understanding with State, in particular at State's headquarters in the United States

Allow any LES who voluntarily wishes to join IFPTE-IFSA to have their membership dues deducted from their pay, similar to U.S. Foreign and Civil Service employees who have joined their respected unions.

We are hopeful that State will meet with us soon so we can find a way to address the many issues impacting LES. Here are our underlying positions we want State to agree on:The following are news articles and reports on this situation, as it develops.Foreign Service Nationals are apparently the “sturdy backbone” that holds together our diplomatic missions overseas. And because we treat them so well and all, there is absolutely no reason why they should ever need a union, or a bill of rights, or an ombudsman. And if they get killed in the line of duty, well then …. they’d be lucky if they find a USG official to fundraise for their next of kin on his own time.Promotion of these core worker rights, including freedom of association, the right to organize and belong to unions, and bargain collectively, freedom from discrimination, and the elimination of forced labor and the worst forms of child labor, are key components of our labor diplomacy. (too bad this does not apply to LES)Since 2009, IFSA has tried multiple channels to seek a dialogue with Washington, but it has to date not been possible to arrange a single discussion with senior management at State. Around the world, the U.S. State Department proudly represents policies promoting worker rights and collective bargaining. Internally, however, the Department rejects even the most exploratory conversation on a mechanism for social dialogue with its largest personnel category, thereby perpetuating long-standing inequities that are out of place in the modern workplace.IFSA members seek the same fundamental justice in the workplace for LES employees that their Foreign and Civil Service colleagues already enjoy. Many have devoted their entire careers to the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies, and should be treated as full members of the team.

< View All News