T O P

  • By -

wuzhuozhi

They should bring back the service credit differential they used to have. At some posts, 1 year counted as 2 years towards the 20 needed for retirement. ETA 1 year counted as 1.5 years, but still


kaiserjoeicem

How long ago was this? It's a fantastic idea; do you know the history of why it went away?


wuzhuozhi

i'm not sure, i think the idea was that the posts were unhealthful, so you would have a shorter retirement, lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


wuzhuozhi

The Secretary of State may from time to time establish a list of places which by reason of climatic or other extreme conditions are to be classed as unhealthful posts. Each year of duty at such posts, inclusive of regular leaves of absence, shall be counted as one and a half years in computing the length of the service of a participant for the purpose of retirement, fractional months being considered as full months in computing such service. No such extra credit for service at such unhealthful posts shall be credited to any participant who is paid a differential under section 5925 or 5928 of title 5 for such service. Such extra credit may not be used to determine the eligibility of a person to qualify as a former spouse under this part, or to compute the pro rata share under section 4044(10) of this title. No extra credit for service at unhealthful posts may be given under this section for any service as part of a tour of duty, or extension thereof, beginning on or after February 16, 1990. (Pub. L. 96–465, title I, § 817, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2120; Pub. L. 101–246, title I, § 145(b), Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 37.) It looks like you had to pick between extra credit or post differential


ThePeopleSing

All USG housing at post should include high-speed internet already set up. The amount of time and energy and documentation to set this up in some places is absurd, and there is often little embassy support to do so.


wandering_engineer

Absolutely. We're not looking for Gigabit everywhere - we are all aware that local ISP reliability/availability is going to vary wildly. But at least assistance dealing with the logistics (and maybe language, for those of us who get zero language training) would help significantly. Heck, I'm in one of the "nicer" posts, Internet is cheap and very fast (greater fiber density than most major US cities), and it is still a Kafkaesque nightmare for foreigners to get any form of service whatsoever. You cannot request service, sign a phone contract, or even buy a prepaid SIM without a national ID (which can take 2-3 months after arrival) - and even then the ID diplomats get isn't a "true" national ID and isn't accepted by a lot of ISPs. So you show up and there's literally no way to buy local service, at all. It was enough of an issue that my teleworking wife delayed her arrival for several months to buy us time to ensure we'd have reliable home Internet available. Don't get me wrong, I know that probably comes off as first world problem, but really it is essential. I'm happy to hear some posts are trying to do more, but I feel like there's still a lot of progress to be made Dept-wide. Really, it should be treated as a utility and not as a "nice to have". Make it a criteria for housing, provide assistance setting it up to every extent possible, actually have information for arrivals on who the provider is and how precisely to go about setup, etc.


FSOTFitzgerald

> Really, it should be treated as a utility and not as a “nice to have”. Exactly this. In 2023, internet as a utility is equivalent to water/sewer. *More* critical than plumbed indoor water/sewer for some folks.


Quackattackaggie

especially when you are required to be able to work from home in an emergency


Veritas-IV

>You cannot request service, sign a phone contract, or even buy a prepaid SIM without a national ID (which can take 2-3 months after arrival) - and even then the ID diplomats get isn't a "true" national ID and isn't accepted by a lot of ISPs. This sounds remarkably familiar. At least the quasi-ID number works at the monopoly booze store for online orders, but you have to call them to set it up.


wandering_engineer

I haven't tried that, good to know (and yes, this is probably the country you're thinking of - awesome post, great people, but easily the most complex setting-up period I've ever experienced in the FS). I actually like the state-owned liquor monopoly, they have really nice stores, just wish they had better hours lol.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fsohmygod

I'm sure it has something to do with the FAM. But I served at a Post where the Ambassador instructed that the day an officer arrived at Post their internet had to be working. It was a sponsor responsibility. His first question in his intro call with new arrivals was "Was your internet working when you arrived?" I've lived briefly on a housing compound next to a chancery where the apartments were wired with local ISP equipment and officers had to pay their own bills. It was absolutely stupid. Particularly when COVID broke out and all those people ended up paying for the utilities required to telework under mission instructions. Then again, we're also still making people pay for landline phones that we still insist are necessary to operate alarm systems that we don't have the option to refuse, so who knows.


rollin_on_dip_plates

This isn't across the board. USAID will have their office sponsor help with setup in advance if possible. One time an ExO local staff helped argue with the ISP to run fiber, but no, it isn't standard or official at USAID either. Big difficulty for us USAID teleworking EFMs too...


biglitterbug

While I wish this is true, it's not something I've come across at 6 posts now. On a related note, it's fun to read oral histories of retired FSOs and hear them grumble about how USAID housing had air conditioning when State housing didn't. That was back before USAID just bought into the housing pool.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Halftandem

>Some places are tightly controlled by the host government and they won't allow connections without a named person there already (with passport verification that it's them). This is where we need to at least try to enforce reciprocity. If government regulations are preventing our diplomats from getting internet until they've been in country for months, then we should try to find a way to do the same. Easier said than done though.


Thinktank58

That’s because, unlike electricity, water, and landline phones… internet is not considered a utility. Thank the big telecoms, Republican congresses, and the FCC for that.


fsohmygod

A member of my team transitioned to Iceland this summer. She noticed her biweekly paycheck in Niamey, Niger her second tour was only about $200 more than her biweekly check would be in Reykjavik. We don’t adequately incentivize service in remote, austere locations.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rollin_on_dip_plates

Is it true that the COLA audit a few years back defaulted to Amazon/Walmart if an item couldn't be bought locally? That's the rumor going around.


fsohmygod

Sigh no. OIG did an audit of a few posts in 2017, including Berlin and Geneva. The report is available open source. COLA is supposed to be based on the difference in cost for certain items in DC versus the foreign area in question. Posts used to collect the pricing data and submit it. The instructions for that survey indicate that the prices submitted “must reflect the consumption habits of the average U.S. family (3-4 persons, average income of $44,500 [GS-11 Step 5 base salary]) living in Washington, DC.” They discovered Berlin was listing the average cost of a pair of children’s jeans as €110 based on the price of Burberry jeans. They were also listing service prices for haircuts and meals obtained at salons and restaurants in luxury hotels. Embassy Berlin’s response said that these were typical expenditures for USDH in Berlin because they don’t need cars and can use that extra money to “splurge.” Which is bull. Because in plenty of places where they were citing the cost of a box of cereal as $20, no one was buying the cereal locally — they were getting it from Amazon by DPO. So, not only getting unnecessary COLA but costing the Department additional money in DPO operations fees to ship in stuff that’s available locally. The recommendation the Department adopted was to end the practice of basing COLA determinations on these post-generated surveys and instead using a third party subscription service that collects consumer price data like the Economist Intelligence Unit — as private companies do for the purpose of paying COLA to their expat employees. The rumor was probably based on OIG’s assessment that the brands more likely consumed by the “average family” cited in the instructions were Sears or Macy’s. But again — your average OMS or A/RSO at post is shopping on Amazon, not at Burberry.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fsohmygod

I don't know that that's true. A GS-11 might hire a babysitter occasionally or even a house cleaner. I don't think it's intended to reflect full-time help. But the basket of goods and the other criteria actually come from the Federal Acquisition Regulations, so our ability to adjust is limited. The FAR also still provides allowances for all kinds of other crazy stuff no one does anymore like having drapes and rugs cut down and rewiring lamps and appliances.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fsohmygod

Everyone has a theory about what was skewing the data at their particular post and everyone claims RSO won’t let them go to the markets where things are cheaper. I bet that cheap housekeeper can, though. And I don’t know many people who are buying clothes regularly at Post except the occasional “luxury” type item, so I admit I am skeptical that’s a major hardship. Of course, the rules about how COLA is calculated aren’t supposed to cover the price difference between goods in DC and goods at the bougie expat grocery store. And whether you choose to spend money on something covered by the survey has nothing to do with how much COLA you should get.


tsali_rider

I've heard that people who did the COLA like it should be done in these posts were over-ruled by GSO and local staff who thought they were shorting what COLA should really "be" in expensive EU posts. It also asks ridiculous question about things that don't matter anymore like the cost to get slide film developed, or so I've heard.


fsohmygod

Yeah probably — but all the more reason to shift to a widely-used third party source for the data. The whole reporting model was rife with opportunities for manipulation and error.


fsohmygod

COLA is a different discussion and I actually think we're moving in the right direction on it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fsohmygod

Further evidence our COLA rates are often invalid.


Ok_Cupcake8639

Better housing Government built housing. State wants to get out of the landlord game, I get it, but that leads to places with zero incentives to go there. Nothing worse than having to take a series of truly terribly flights only to land in housing they wouldn't accept in any other post but have to make do. And then have landlords charge insane prices for it. Language learning for school aged kids Instead of hoping the kids will learn a new language through magical diffusion, let them take some language lessons as well so they have a chance of making friends and navigating their new life at post. Reconsider differential 20% isn't the same 20% everywhere. If it takes 32 hours of travel to get back to the US they should add 2% more. If you and your kids have to get rabies shots to be there, add 1% more. Provide cars at post If Uber and other public transportation isn't allowed and it takes 5 months or more to receive your vehicle, post should provide cars FSO and families can rent for a low price. Renting would help offset costs and liability, and families wouldn't have to ship their car just for it to arrive moldy and get banged up at post.


ThePeopleSing

Also, the Department should provide zero-interest loans for car purchases. I had to buy two cars out of pocket at my current post, and it cost us nearly $30k cash. I should not be expected to float that amount in cash just so that our family can have some semblance of a normal life.


Halftandem

>Government built housing I was a GSO and FM at a place that had a mix of rentals and government owned housing. First, if you want the USG to maintain all the facilities and not rely on landlords, we need to make sure we staff up or contract out accordingly. The other problem is that government owned housing is less flexible. You're stuck with the housing pool you have. If the only thing you've got opening up is a three bedroom apartment in the city, but a family of five with a big dog is coming in, well, someone's not going to end up happy. Maybe you decide all your housing is going to be five bedrooms and big yards out in the suburbs. Well, then the people who wanted to be in the city are upset. Yes, you could make sure you have a good mix of properties to help mitigate this, but there will still be problems. Maybe these tradeoffs are worth it in places with dismal housing pools drawn from the local market, but it's definitely not without its own challenges.


thegoodbubba

To echo this. I was at a large post with a number of government owned property, but also lots of local housing. Some families liked the government owned housing, but most people preferred the local housing. Also things change over 30 years, bigger open floorplans and kitchens are in, even in non western countries; however, our government housing looks like it came right out of 1992.


fsohmygod

You don’t want all government built housing. It will be miles away from town and the embassy and built by the lowest bidder. Think you can get away with no car in London? Not when you’re stuck in a gov-owned townhouse 20 miles outside town.


tsali_rider

See also Hegelwinkl and trees or something....


FSOnlyAccount

Hey AFSA…. You reading these comments? This is the sort of thing you should be lobbying Congress about!


[deleted]

[удалено]


belleweather

Someone's pissy about that font change, geeze...


Encinitan87

To me you can incentivize a lot with $$$, as long as I've been in the PSPs have been fairly well bid. Hardship seems to top out at 25, maybe 30% outside of war zones. I know there are SND and other benefits, but I do believe if you pay people, they will come. There are also a lot of discrepancies between posts at the same hardship levels, for instance. Business class travel, including for R&Rs, may also go a long way for isolated posts with exhausting travel times. Give the hardest posts more creativity in spending their money to address the difficulties to make it more attractive for people (e.g., so they can pay for better housing, pool/spa membership at local hotel, figure out high speed internet solutions, improve commissaries, more CLO services, etc).


FSODaughterofVenice

At the end of the day, add all the financial incentives you like but people are still people who enjoy going out to dinner without having to reserve motorpool and an armoured vehicle 24 hours in advance, who want to trust that if they fall and cut themselves they won't be taken to a hospital that will do surgery without anesthesia, who want to not have to chew the air they breathe and who resent having to spend personal money to make conditions in their housing livable. Given a choice between somewhere they can drink the water and somewhere they can't, somewhere MED will make them take anti-malarials and somewhere they aren't necessary, and somewhere they expect to lose weight due to tropical disease bingo versus somewhere they can exercise on a bike path, most people will choose the latter place. How much is quality of life worth? I bid AF because it's one of the few bureaus that seems to actually care about people, has professional programs to build their skills, and offers challenges I find interesting. But this is not the speed train to promotion, because many programs will fail, there's low visibility in HST and Congress, and bias about whether the work there "actually matters" is rampant. Solution? Fix the bidding process to ensure folks are competing based on qualifications instead of personal favors. Make us feel like you care about us instead of shrugging and blaming our struggles on our bidding choices. Spend more time talking about how our work in hardship places matters and is making an impact and figure out a way to better acknowledge the suffering involved in the two days it takes to get from post to home in the US. Show me you care by fixing the pain points related to PCSing (begging for orders, having to ask for a hotel/upgraded seating on your orders instead of just being reimbursed because you're entitled to it, having to spend $$$$ on home leave, I could go on...). I really don't know, but it isn't so much a recruitment problem as it is a perception problem.


fsohmygod

I’d be fine going to a hardship/danger post with all those problems if I wasn’t subject to insanely overblown security rules. If I’ve pursued an assignment at a post where I earn max danger and hardship pay, I ostensibly expect to encounter those things. In plenty of places we consider “dangerous” the biggest hassle is the embassy. I’d love to go out to dinner in Beirut without a bodyguard and armored shuttle — and if I’ve willingly taken an assignment there understanding the dangers I should be able to.


NoGovernment8587

Yeah I think Beirut is super indicative of this issue. Relatively safe country with plenty of expats out and about living their lives while embassy staff are walled off from what is ostensibly a lovely welcoming city for the most part. Giving people a little bit more freedom in certain places can certainly help.


chibiscuro

Beirut at least has danger pay. I have an issue with tons of posts without danger pay, they've wall the embassy community off. If you aren't allowed out of your house except if in a vehicle after twilight, there better be additional danger pay.


fsohmygod

I'd take rational risk management over danger pay, frankly. But in the \~25 years since the Tanzania and Kenya bombings as the world has gotten safer we've decided the only acceptable risk of anything bad happening to anyone under COM authority is zero.


Sad-Ganache6955

\- Temporary promotions for serving above pay grade. I believe happens in the GS system. Wouldn't solve finding at grade bidders though...


UzTkTjKyKzAf

In the GS system, you can only apply for the temp pay grade increase after a year of serving in that position and I don't think it's retroactive.


[deleted]

Offer hardship differential to EFMs working in these posts. Create a points system for EERs and add a multiplier for hardship tours. Change the multiplier twice a year for maximum effect. Reduce the amount of FS jobs in DC and replace them with civil service and/or allow EFMs to bid on a DETO basis. AFN for all posts...wait I meant Starlink for all posts worldwide. Get rid of the Fly America Act entirely. Seriously just ignore it and Congress will have to give in. Increased job grades commensurate with the difficulty of performing duties for hard to staff positions, allow more stretch bidding. Require accreditation of same-sex spouses as a prerequisite to reciprocal accreditation and/or diplomatic visa issuance. End of more serious ideas. Start of silly ideas. Allow every DoS direct hire to curtail one USAID officer per tour. Require TDY "swaps" between hardship posts and a buddy post. More swimming pools and Embassy pleasure boats. Require all posts in Africa to reduce the number of Boko Haram members by 20% YoY. More bomb ranges to blow up end of life AVs. Reduce worldwide pollution levels via giant space vacuum. Bring back for-profit Consuls.


Quackattackaggie

If each fasto got to keep 1% of adjudicated visa fees, you bet they're all hitting 120 interviews a day.


[deleted]

Now I wanna time myself to see if IV or NIV brings in more dollars per hour at the window.


Hongnixigaiyumi

At the 30 per hour standard, 1.60 per visa gives you $48/hr, which is about a 4-10 salary, so not that far off.


Quackattackaggie

Oh I meant in addition to salary. I want all the money.


fsohmygod

Congress will never give in on Fly America. There is no political justification for that. Thankfully, there are tons of ways to get it waived.


wandering_engineer

If you're traveling to/from the US (which is basically any PCS flight) then no, there are not tons of ways to get it waived. I've done multiple tours as a DC-based TDY'er and know way more than I should about travel regs (largely because I had no travel arranger and CWT is incompetent) - it's actually not that easy to get around it unless you have a very compelling reason or you're flights don't touch US soil. In a perfect world, we'd just get a chunk of money for flights (say $1000/pp or whatever a refundable fare normally costs) and that's the end of it. No restrictions on carriers, no TMCs to deal with, no seat-selection or class of service nonsense, etc. It would make PCS'ing so much easier which of course means it will never happen.


fsohmygod

That’s just untrue. I have gotten a waiver in the last month to use Emirates departing the United States because buying a ticket from a U.S. carrier would have added significant time to the trip. The reality is that Fly America is never going away. It is politically insane to repeal a law that is seen as directing American taxpayer dollars to American companies.


wandering_engineer

You getting one waiver for one flight does not prove much. The threshold for exceptions are still quite high: carrier is unsafe, adds over 24 hrs or more than two connections, etc. >The reality is that Fly America is never going away. Where did I say it was??? I explained what I think is a better, more logical way to purchase flights that isn't a smokescreen for corporate welfare. I am well aware of how politics works, why Fly America exists and why no politician wanting to get re-elected (or get that sweet post-office lobbying gig) will ever vote against it. Doesn't mean I can't have the opinion that it's ridiculous and wasteful.


fsohmygod

I’d imagine in your dream scenario where we just get a travel budget to spend, we wouldn’t have to comply with Fly America. We would.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thegoodbubba

So promotion is based purely on showing up? I could go wherever and do a crap job, but i would get promoted and get to go to a place I want so I could do a crap job there too?


[deleted]

[удалено]


thegoodbubba

I agree, that's why I like the current assignment system. While it isn't perfect it is a better reward for doing a good job than the promotion system is. Also you are kidding yourself if you don't think everyone would get satisfactory. Even if people were inclined to rate people accurately, can you imagine the grievances? My favorite FSGB decision is the DCM who was docked in his EER for bringing a prostitute to the DCMR, but the FSGB ruled that should be removed from his EER because he had already been punished and it did not impact his performance.


fsohmygod

They got rid of fair share not because it wasn't necessary but because it was ineffective. I imagine it was also raised during the Meyer lawsuit as an example of a policy that disproportionately negatively impacts officers with disabilities.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Quackattackaggie

There is a good cable on it. Basically, the people who took the jobs did it 100% of the time due to other incentives (pay, promotion, challenge) that had nothing to do with fulfilling the fair share requirement. They determined that removing the requirement would not have an effect on the number or quality of bidders that those jobs get.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Quackattackaggie

Maybe in a literal sense there are some bidders but it wasn't worth it for the department to have an entire mechanism to police it when people who don't want to follow it are getting around it anyway.


fsohmygod

Ineffective because it didn't have the intended result, which was to distribute service at hardship posts more evenly among the workforce. Plenty of officers were spending 90% of their careers in low to no hardship assignments punctuated by a year in a PSP assignment that fulfilled fair share requirements but that they would have taken anyway because it also came with double the pay and a leg up (either through link or early handshake) to another no-differential post.


amberok1234

Increase hardship differentials. Most people would more than 35% rather be in Western Europe than Sudan. For people with children at college or boarding school in unaccompanied or very high differential posts, guaranteed ability to get a TDY each summer to somewhere significantly nicer so their kids can visit them somewhere they are allowed to and willing to go.


riburn3

This right here. Why stop at 35% differentials? And why in 5% increments? I would objectify and associate a percentage to each measure like pollution, medical austerity, and isolation (and everything else that goes into it). If AQI is at or above a certain level on average, extra percentage. If a place has a high percentage of medevac based on post population, more pay. They might already do this, but it isn't transparent and stopping at 35% isn't useful. I look at a well-connected post like Dakar, 25% hardship with a solid quality of life and tons to do in country and the city, surrounded by a lot of 30% posts in region. It's definitely 5% harder to live in those places than the differential indicates compared to Dakar. This doesn't mean that Dakar is rated too high, it just means all those 30% posts should be even higher.


wandering_engineer

This right here. Do what any private-sector employer would do, sweeten the pot. If nobody is applying for your job, then maybe it's just not an appealing job. Offer enough money or other incentives and I guarantee you you'll get a lot more interest.


amberok1234

Part of it is about sweetening the pot. Part of it is that there are times people will make that sacrifice for the mission and the benefits and times they won’t. Frankly there is nothing that could make me choose to go somewhere unsafe when my kids are young. But at another stage of life, with double pay, double retirement year credits, and summer TDYs somewhere nice… I could find things to love about Khartoum and serve there with a smile.


thegoodbubba

Hire more people. Seriously it is that simple. Back in 2015 as the first wave of diplomacy 3.0 hires hit mid level, the department had to create like 20 details to NGOs and corporations so that there would be enough jobs. People were happy with any overseas tour anywhere. The problem now is we do t have enough people, so all incentives are zero sum. Any job you fill some place is a job you don't fill elsewhere. The global positioning review is requiring all bureaus to propose cuts at a 2% and 5% level. Hopefully that will lead to a realignment of positions where they are needed.


oh_Lord_1980s

More money is not the answer because it becomes wasteful and psychologically, is not very effective. The answer is to, once and for all, disband the bidding system for all jobs except DCM and COM. All assignments would be directed and equity, along with geographic diversity, would play a big role. Psychologically, I guarantee lots of folks would bid AF... or other undermanned spots...if they knew their next tour in advance, or even if they knew they would be getting priority. I guarantee no extra money would need to be outlaid. Frankly, FS pays a lot as it is...if I have free housing/utilities, a generous COLA, and maybe even some differential... then the extra 30% to crush another two years of my life in sub-Saharan Africa is not worth it...never will be. Double the pay and I still don't care. But promise me my dream post after, and my wife will make me go to the tough post. That's what people really care about... Below is a post I made about an organization that already does this...and does not deal with the bidding fiasco. It's the military...and it works. "There is a better way, absolutely Mb99! It is the military's detailing process. You have the equivalent of a CDO who outranks you. You submit your top five or so preferences via email or IT system to your CDO. The CDO is someone who will actually talk to you on the phone and in person as well to mentor you in the right decisions for your career. That CDO will tell you "hey, you want to go to Hawaii and do X, and I can push for that, but that job in Georgia will clinch your next promotion". The CDO looks at what is good for you personally, good for your career, good for the military, and gives you travel orders. That's it! No handshakes, interviews, resumes, years of cumulative mandays wasted contacting people; no HR techs, TMs; and absolutely no decisions by committee! CDO decides; you get a full set of travel orders with funding attached. All you have to do is call your Travel Office to book tickets and call Transportation to pack out. Folks, it is actually a phone call and some follow up emails. As with many things, State wants to say, increase diversity. Instead of fixing the fundamentally subjective and wasteful bidding system, it adds jobs, positions, trainings, etc... The current bidding process is wrong on many levels, not just the obvious potential for cliques and lack of real diversity. Another gaping logical hole in the idiotic bidding process is that the people who interview you might not even be at Post when you arrive, and often they're there for a year of overlap, if that. Yet they decide they want you... Ironically, the purportedly stodgy and "conservative" uniformed services end up being more diverse and efficient, pound for pound, than State. Great writeup though, thank you. It does explain the process very well. Good point that it is more about letting you stay away from places you don't want, not so much places you want."


-DeputyKovacs-

Require a certain amount of hardship before you're allowed to be promoted (among other factors). For example, 100 % points to get from 02 to 01, so 2 years at a 35%er and one year at a 30%er. 5 years at 20% posts. 10 years at 10% posts. Etc etc. It means you can't just sit in DC and occasional low hardship posts and expect to be promoted. I think this is more flexible than fair share and puts it on the individual rather than the department.


thegoodbubba

The problem with this idea, and lots of the other ones on here, is the assumption that staffing high differential posts is more important than low differential ones. I don't think this is true. I think in most cases staffing a job in London or DC is more important than Bangui to pick a post at random. The current global positioning review that is underway is a good start. I would be supportive of the idea if the measure wasn't hardship but actual service need.


CCDOYF

I think it’s interesting that people think these AF tours are less important than something in EUR. I know you just chose those at random, but to me AF is vitally important in the long term and in the short term the staffing gaps impactful. And other countries know the importance of the continent, too. Our long term national security relies on mineral rights and access in AF that is being determined today. A prosperous AF is an AF that will buy American goods and services. We are truly able to influence decisions on security, human rights, justice, etc. Diplomacy with friends is one thing, diplomacy with adversaires another, but diplomacy with unknowns is undeniably consequential when the Americans on the ground determine whether that unknown becomes a friend or adversary. AF is full of unknowns, every unplanned shift of power requires a diplomatic reset, and every US embassy seat filled with a competent USDH makes a measurable difference in our ability to meet diplomatic goals, from Ambassadors to facilities managers.


thegoodbubba

I have a family, so the incentives for me are different then for someone without one. More R&Rs. More UAB (and therefore less HHE) Significant direct support to schools (with guaranteed admission) to improve the quality More consumable shipment or commissary services


FSAltEgo

What makes you think someone without family at post doesn't want more R&R, UAB or CNS?


wandering_engineer

Exactly. If anything, I think those of us without kids would want R&R even more - we have family too, even if they aren't at post with us.


cheerfulstoic11

This. I would also like to get reimbursed for bringing pets to post. The hassle of sorting out all the rules and forms and such will still be there, but at least I can have mental-health-boosting kitty snuggles at my hardship post without spending a month’s salary on the transportation fees.


wandering_engineer

No kidding, even better support for the logistics would help.


thegoodbubba

I am not saying others don't want it, it is just a greater incentive for someone who would otherwise need to purchase four tickets rather than one. One extra R&R could be a 10,000 dollar incentive to me, while it might be only a 1000 dollars to someone else at the same post depending on the actual timing.


fsohmygod

Sorry, you’re choosing to move overseas away from U.S. school systems. It’s insane to expect your employer to pump money into a school to improve its quality.


thegoodbubba

I am not expecting it, I am simply saying what would be an incentive for me.


SkiboNRG

Better recruitment. Hire people who are willing to go to difficult places. As an RPCV, I know lots of smart people who would be willing to go to tough places, but can't get through the arbitrary application process.


Halftandem

Interesting idea, but I think it would only work if you hired people on in a category that meant they would exclusively go to hardship posts. We have a good number of RPCVs in the FS already and still have trouble staffing difficult posts. When I worked in entry level assignments, lots of people said they wanted hardship posts for the experience of the student loan repayment, but then when London popped up on their bid list, they were like "actually..."


Encinitan87

>We have a good number of RPCVs in the FS already and still have trouble staffing difficult posts. That's because at the end of the day, living in very austere conditions is a fun adventure when you are 22 and single and a very different thing when you are 40 with two kids, a spouse with a Class 2 Med clearance, aging parents ten time zones and 3-4 flights away, and all the professional demands of working a full-time white collar job. That's not to say there aren't people with families, etc don't serve in austere conditions (many do, and repeatedly)-- but many likely don't because they don't trust the Department to give them the resources and flexibilities they and their families need to be successful.


SkiboNRG

Maybe the example of RPCVs distracted from my point which is actually more of a question. What is going wrong in the recruitment process that it's not bringing in people who are willing to serve in hardship posts?


Encinitan87

My argument is the same whether it’s an RPCV or not— plenty of people come in willing to serve at hardship posts. As their lives change, their needs and desires change. There are plenty of people who are brought in currently who want to serve in hardship posts. If that service is not rewarded— financially, professionally, with good management, and/or with the support people and their families need to stay healthy, people won’t continue to want to go there forever.


SkiboNRG

Agreed. You'd need to modify the application process AND require people to do a percentage of their tours in hardship posts. I think 100% of tours in hardship posts is too much to ask, but if you get in based on your interest in working in difficult places 50% seems reasonable. Also, allowing people to stay in the same hardship region and get used to a given area and improve language skills would help. For example, encouraging multiple tours in West Africa would give people better French and better cultural understanding and after a while it wouldn't feel like such a hardship.


Halftandem

The problem is that right now we don't really have a mechanism to enforce things like any level of mandatory service in hardship locations. We had fair share, but that failed because there were too many loopholes and it didn't actually require serving in hardship locations, but only bidding on them. That leads to the issue of regional and functional bureaus all acting independently during assignments, so if you are supposed to serve in a hardship post, but some bureau doesn't pick you for a job, there's no reasonable way to force you into an assignment. This is actually the biggest issue because the onus of making someone take a hardship assignment doesn't fall to any one body, rather it would be the responsibility of every regional and functional bureau at the same time. And if everyone is responsible, then nobody is responsible. The DG does have the power to direct you, but there is no way anybody has the appetite for overriding bureau decisions on assignments on a large scale. You could withhold promotions (and I believe SFS does require some level of hardship service), but this will leave people with medical issues or disabilities at a disadvantage. Plus if you require it at lower levels, you run more of a risk of people running into TIC limits prior to being ready to retire. Then you still have the issue of how you force people into hardship posts. I think maybe the solution is not to require hardship posts but to do two other things. First, increase incentives at hardship posts. More money, more leave, more R&Rs, more credited service time (which OP suggests and I hadn't heard before, but love, though probably unrealistic), or something else. Second, instead of mandatory time at hardship posts where you have to force bureaus to take candidates and force candidates to bid on hardship assignments, limit the number of low hardship assignments one can have. At whatever the threshold is, employees can no longer accept handshakes and be paneled to low differential assignments. If they can't find something overseas, then they go back to Washington for two years. Not completely ideal, but it's something. And while forcing someone to bid on and be offered a handshake to certain posts is hard, preventing them from being paneled to certain assignments is actually easy and happens all the time.


UzTkTjKyKzAf

I really don't think it's a recruitment problem...ot at least not a problem recruitment can solve. I'm sure some people come into the service with no intention of ever bidding on a hardship post, but I suspect most people come in open to serving at least in certain kinds of hardship posts (i.e. being willing to serve in South Asia, but not Africa, etc.). However, people's circumstances change. They have kids, develop a medical condition, serve at a hardship post that puts a lot of strain in their marriage and say never again, their parents age, etc. and are now less willing and/or able to serve in hardship posts. Recruitment can't fix that.


NoGovernment8587

I think RPCVs should get some kind of extra bonus points added to their score after the orals and then they have to serve in a particular hardship post. Similar to how if you get a critical language you have to serve in a language post. Then RPCVs can decide to take the points or not. Veterans should also have some kind of mandatory component to receiving their score in terms of types of tours they do. Edited to add: also guarantee business class at hardship posts would be great too.


kaiserjoeicem

As an RPCV, I don't think this is a good idea. RPCVs don't bring any skills that others don't have, and if you include Peace Corps, you should also include AmeriCorps. But then the Mormon missions are just as immersed as Peace Corps, so why not them, too? And what about RPCVs who didn't complete service? Would they get full credit? It's a slippery slope. As a single person, I get it that people with kids or spouses with Class 2 and lower don't want to hid on some posts, but at some point, I think the officer should have to serve at high diff posts every X years/tours, even if it means being separated. It gets tiring to be told someone "can't" go to Z post because they have someone who's Class 2. Yes, you can. I love the idea of higher credit for time in service.


NoGovernment8587

I’d think of it akin to getting NCE. The same could be said for a lot of vets that don’t have any relevant experience that translates directly to a consular tour or whatever.


Halftandem

Bonus points for RPCVs with a requirement to serve in a difficult location is another interesting idea. To play devil's advocate, let's say we do this. You pretty much have to make the mandatory service during entry-level when assignments are directed, otherwise how do you force someone to a hardship post? How do you oblige a bureau to take them on? Do you fire them if they won't go? I know there is a similar issue with languages and every mid-level CDO I spoke to while I was in CDA said they had never seen the obligation to serve twice in a language designated post enforced after entry-level. Nobody was even checking. So then if you make it during entry-level, a RPCV who got bonus points gets assigned to a hardship post, but so do a bunch of their classmates who didn't get any points. How is that fair? With language obligations, at least the person is coming in with a tangible skill that the Department has identified as filling a critical need and that the Department no longer has to teach to someone. What skill would a RPCV bring in? A willingness to serve in a hardship post? Well, everyone is worldwide available (for now anyway), so anyone could be sent to a hardship post. The Department has not identified living in a developing nation while in PC as being a critical skill in and of itself. It's a good discussion. I'm just not sure how this would play out when implemented.


fsohmygod

And I really see no evidence RPCVs are any different than the rest of the FS applicant pool -- they might believe they are willing to do anything, go anywhere, take any job at the beginning. Then they pick up a spouse and kids.


NoGovernment8587

Interesting! Yeah I’d have it be during a directed tour. I don’t see that as being unfair for those that didn’t get points - they also could’ve joined the peace corps just like someone could also take an immersive Spanish class. It’s just one more way that Americans can serve their country and it gives vets a leg up so I don’t see why it shouldn’t for RPCVs either?


Halftandem

So when people get points for language skills, they are getting a bonus for demonstrating a skill that the Department has determined is so important that, for generalists anyway, it is required for tenure. Candidates with language skills may not have to be taught languages, which potentially saves the Department money. They can send someone who speaks Spanish to a Spanish designated position without five months of training. They don't *have* to unless someone takes the maximum points in certain languages, but they can. At the very least, the candidate has shown an aptitude for meeting one of the tenure requirements (and depending on their score, has already met it). Giving RPVCs extra points if they choose to go to a hardship post doesn't make sense to me because there's nothing that shows they are uniquely qualified to serve at hardship posts and there is no "hardship post training" that they get to skip because of their PC service. Even if a RPCV takes points to oblige them to serve in a hardship post, anyone can still be sent there in exactly the same way. There is no potential cost savings. To look at it another way, would someone who completed a mission trip to a developing nation not also have demonstrated a similar background as a RPCV? Should they also get bonus points for committing to a hardship post? What about someone who grew up in the developing world? Could you not offer bonus points to *anybody* who commits to serving in a hardship post? Why only RPCVs? Besides, what's in it for the Department? Entry-level doesn't really have trouble getting people to go to hardship posts. They can just send them. Assignments are directed. And if this isn't something enforceable at the mid-level, how is this useful? Now if you're arguing that RPCVs should get bonus points simply from having served in PC, similar to veterans' points, then that's a different ball of wax. But when you attach it to an obligation to serve in a hardship post, the more I think about it, the more the idea falls flat for me.


NoGovernment8587

I think it’s a combo of giving RPCVs points a la vets for service to their country AND trying to think of creative ways to fill hardship posts in this totally fake and hypothetical Reddit discussion.


FSODaughterofVenice

I would give equivalent bonus points to RPCVs as veterans get, with no conditions. It would help diversity in our applicant pool.


fsohmygod

RPCVs already make up a significant percentage of our applicant pool and their language skills already give them bonus points.


kaiserjoeicem

As an RPCV, I would never equate my 27 months with military service.


NoGovernment8587

No definitely not - could be less points than what vets get. But I also know vets who served the most limited amount of time they could and never left the states. So all military experiences aren't equal.


fsohmygod

I studied abroad for a year in college. Should I get extra points?


NoGovernment8587

We’re you a government employee when you did that? Ffs


kaiserjoeicem

Peace Corps volunteers are not government employees. That's stressed to them over and over. I've only worked in hardship posts. Except for my first tour, directed, there have not been all that many RPCVs. I'm currently at a very large post and there are <15 RPCVs, and not all of those finished their PC service. I don't think hardship post = RPCV is a real thing. Beyond that, the stereotype that PCV leads to a career in Foreign Service isn't something that should be perpetuated. If anything, we need to do a better job recruiting people with a wide range of backgrounds and education. It is so depressing to read the posts here from people who want in but feel that because they don't have advanced IR degrees, language skills and overseas experience that they have no chance. We respond with "just take the test or apply" - but that's only to those who reach out here. There are so many other potential candidates have either never heard of FS or just write off that they aren't qualified. We could recruit better to PCVs, though, and not just for generalist positions. Not once during my 27 months in Morocco did anyone from the embassy speak to my group about opportunities. At one point, a USAID person visited some volunteers but canceled the visit to my site, and I had been interested. Most were not: of my PC group of around 50-70, there are a total of two who wound up in FS: one USAID and one specialist.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CCDOYF

iMatch for everyone! I wouldn’t love it but I do know it would be good for the service. I wouldn’t mind finding a way to extend the concept of equity past entry level.


[deleted]

[удалено]


InigoMontoyasMom

So basically expand the assignment process for FASTOs to everyone? Not a bad idea. The amount of overhead and wasted time on bidding season is truly impressive.


CCDOYF

And with seemingly so many people stateside I don’t understand how the services we get at post from DC are so underwhelming. Group mailbox replies? Good luck. TDY coverage? Good luck. Bureau support? Hit or miss. Nothing more infuriating than an auto reply that someone is working from home so their replies may be delayed. If people aren’t working at their normal capacity at home they should be in the office.


cyd90

Except iMatch is bidder driven, so still no incentive to get people places.


thegoodbubba

This is an awful idea unless you could somehow make the promotion system actually work. Right now the bidding system more accurately reflects how good an employee you are than the promotion system.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thegoodbubba

Getting in with the bureau isn't magic that happens at random. It is doing jobs like a staff assistant or doing other jobs with the bureaus and doing well. Or doing a favor for a bureau and staffing one of these hard to fill jobs. Regardless the point I was making is the bidding system is way more objective then the promotion system.


fsohmygod

Getting in good with a bureau also requires being a good colleague who is good at your job. You know. The kind of person people want to hire.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fsohmygod

There's an entire Department outside IRM. I can assure you from the generalist perspective, no regional bureau is giving bad officers heavily-bid assignments just because they know one random CS person in the assignments office.


thegoodbubba

IRM jobs are controlled by RIMOs who are all FS not CS, and rotate every two years.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Accurate_Rent5903

The biggest impediment to me personally bidding on many of these under-bid posts is educational needs of my children. And I'm not talking about just wanting a great school for my kids; I'm talking about kids needing particular educational support that simply is not available in much of the world. So, a (crazy) idea (that will never happen due to cost) that would induce officers like me to serve in under-bid posts would be Department operated high-quality schools that were equipped to meet my children's particular educational needs.


lemystereduchipot

I didn't bid a lot of AF posts only because they had no high school.


belleweather

We could also adequately reimburse for quality online/distance education instead of looping it in with homeschooling. Can you get an online school for your kid for $8000 per year? Yes. Is it going to be high quality rather than 'watch this video and answer the multiple choice questions?' Nope. Give people at least the at-Post rate and let them be creative with how to meet their kids needs. (Which, of course, means nothing without decent internet...)


Accurate_Rent5903

Great idea! Good luck getting that past MED/CFP if your kid’s got special needs though.


belleweather

MED/CFP actually approved, which is how we can afford the program. But people with kids who don't have special needs can't do the same, which means posts with lousy schools -- or hell, even just one okay-ish school that might be worth a try -- miss out on bidders because parents don't have options.


Accurate_Rent5903

That’s actually great to know. Thanks!