State Department double standard?

Cheers Terry says on Jun 14, 2008, 15:04:

Weeeell.... go ahead and flame me, but I can understand their point.

In some developing countries if the local embassy support was remunerated by 1st world wage standards every time they stepped foot outside the gates to go home they'd risk being murdered by the next person in line for the job.

Does anyone doing business in any foreign country pay by the standards accepted in their home country, or do they pay by standards as accepted as fair exchange in the country where the work is being done?

Your righteous indignation is a bit of a slippery slope...

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Joel y Luza says on Jun 14, 2008, 16:22:

I agree with Terry... If you are a local, then you get local wages, but if transfered there from the States, then the US rates should apply... Thats how it works for the government agency I work for...

You have to have a pretty select skill set to get above market wages with the Feds....

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Jun 14, 2008, 17:21:

... or be kin to a powerful politician.

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 14, 2008, 18:08:

All good points. I can see it both ways.

That the diplomats themselves are paid an American salary isn't in any way troublesome... but how about the random expat who wants to work a job normally given to local employees? Why does he get paid less that the spouse of a diplomat for the same job?

It seems problematic to me, because all the equal opportunity laws and equality of pay laws that apply in the states seem to apply to Federal agencies... I'm sure they've found a way legally to justify paying two different Americans two different wages for the same job, but I don't get it. I'd love to talk to the lawyers.

The reason they do it all about moral and retention.

Believe me Sanandressi, the Department isn't willing to pay a trailing spouse more because it feels bad about the "hardship." That's a very incomplete explanation.

It's willing to pay the trailing spouse more because if it doesn't, a lot of those young diplomats will make it to their second and third tours, see how far they are falling behind their double income friends, realize how tired they are of dealing with a depressed, underemployed spouse, and choose their marriage and prosperity over their career with the State Department.

In otherwords, State looses somebody who it has probably vetted very carefully, for whom it has purchased an expensive background check, and whom it has not simply trained in the law and craft of diplomacy, but put through a very expensive language training program.

Let's face it... if you take that job - which doesn't require a clearance or much training - and you get pissed off and quit over the low wages, State won't loose much at all. State will just replace you with a 100% fluent Colombian who is ecstatic to have the opportunity.

If State doesn't make the Diplomats spouse somewhat happy, it likely loses both of them.

The reason that you are roughling a lot of feathers is that you have a point, of course, and those guys don't want to see the benefit dissapear and live with the consequences.

That could happen, I suppose. But for the time being, I guess if you want the big bucks, you'll just have to get in line to become an FSO or FSS, or marry somebody who has done so.

Good luck!

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 14, 2008, 18:14:

Lastly, I'd just have to say I find it kind of amusing that you want to get a bunch of Americans annoyed with their government for not providing them work opportunities in Colombia.

WTF Sannandressi... if you want to live in Colombia, why not direct your litigious attitude at that government? Demand a job and a living wage from them? How much welfare do you expect in this life?

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Jun 14, 2008, 18:49:

How many US citizens are employed at the Colombian consulates?

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 14, 2008, 19:32:

Well... I don't think we have any consulates in Colombia. Just the embassy in Bogota... and how many citizens? Geeze... it's a big embassy. I'd think breaking 100, when you include DOS, ICE, DEA, FBI, ATF, trailing spouses, etc., etc.

It's BIG.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

brad216 says on Jun 15, 2008, 04:42:

What's the big deal. If you are an expat living in another country or a Colombian National, why should you get paid the same as someone from the States who is going to move to that country for work? especially paying a col national less should not even be questioned. is it a company's responsibility to pay every employee the same? the col national should be happy that another country's govt is willing to give a non us citizen a job at the embassy. they are being compensated fairly for an avg salary for their country. lastly, wastelandive has it right...if you leave the us to become an expat in another country, you have to come to the realization that you need to adjust to whatever country you have decided to live in and direct feelings towards them.

some people on here just want to bash anything cause they have nothing better to do.

Next post will be....i just lost my job teaching english at the university here in colombia and the us govt won't let me apply for unemployment because i'm an expat in another country... i'm a citizen....pay me my money. lol.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Jun 15, 2008, 07:43:

Wastelandlive: I meant: How many US citizens are employed at the COLOMBIAN consulates - in the US? There are several Colombian consulates in the US. My guess is besides maybe cleaning contractors and other similar contractors, there are NO US citizens employed at a Colombian consulate in the US. In Colombia, the US consulate / embassy is FULL of Colombian citizen employees.

My point was just to point out that the US embassy employs a lot of Colombian citizens, where the Colombian counterparts in the US probably do not have any US citizens employed. (Or maybe they do? ... I would like to be corrected and find out that US citizens are employed by the Colombian consulates)

--"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not for our children's children, because I don't think that children should be having sex." - Jack Handy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on Jun 15, 2008, 08:18:

Yes, how many US citizens are employed at Colombian government facilities here in the US?

If the trailing spouse cannot give up their jobs here in the United States to follow hubby or wife then the hubby or wife should quit the State Department and do something else. I would like to know how many US citizens are working in the embassy who were hired in Colombia and held a valid Colombian work visa and are or were not relatives? I would bet none or maybe one or two. Because STATE wants to hire the local Colombian if they can't engage in the nepotism.

In most years the State Department has as many as 30,000 applicants for Foreign Service Officers. They normally hire 300 to 500 so if relative wife or hubby do not want to follow then too bad. Last year senior State Department officials were having meetings protesting they did not want to go to Iraq and Conndee Rice was going to fire them! They ran out of volunteers. SNOBS! They knew that worldwide assignment is part of the job!

State is allowed NEPOTISM because Congress made it an "exempted" agency. It is still NEPOTISM and the next time you hear that the US government is a "Equal Opportunity Employer" do not believe it! State discriminates! Paying a relative 29,000 and a fellow CITIZEN $13,500 for tee same WORK is discrimination but they don't want fellow Americans so they talk about having a VALID Colombian work visa and I got ILLEGAL Mexicans living two houses down from us who bought the house. Same US GOVERNMENT does nothing!

Free trade...it is good for all of us we are told?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

rjstuff says on Jun 15, 2008, 08:31:

I knew this about the consulate in New Delhi, India - but it was perfectly understood - apartment rentals are sky high in Delhi and for a foreign national - they will need to pay the top price (Indians will manage to find something cheaper or may already be living in the city); foreigners will have a very hard time traveling in buses - locals are already doing it (I wasn't able to use the bus system in India - not strong enough to hang by the side of the buses) so the foreigners pay much more for commuting (maybe 4 to 10 times more); Local food - yes, some foreigners love it but others may have to find imported canned goods to survive. I absolutely agreed that a US working in New Delhi should be paid at least 3 to 5 times more than an Indian there - by the way even the Indian salaries were very attractive to the locals (who tried to get those jobs any way they could) - yep, unemployment has always been very high and working in an air-conditioned office at good salaries are always considered better than working for an Indian employer in a lousy, hot and humid office (unless you can get a job with IBM or something). Perhaps things are somewhat similar in Bogota?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on Jun 15, 2008, 09:29:

To Joel, as a GOVERNMENT employee you are supposed to be working for me and not I for you!

I must admit that when I first went into the embassy in Bogota over 10 years ago I was stunned to see NO American citizens working the windows of the consulate. Hiding behind the Colombian employees in the back! I had taken the Foreign Service Officer examination 6 or 7 years earlier along with 30,000 others worldwide. I was denied the next step process of oral interview. Most of we 30,000 were as well. A few years later I had the indignation of reading a US senate sub committe report on "..recruitment and selection by the department of state..." The senate sub committe admitted that "...the was absolutely no correlation as to how one would serve as a FS officer and how they scored on the examination..."

Then of course, there are the State Department programs where certain people become Foreign Service Officers and they do not have to take the examination at all. Certain interns of color and gender who get accepted because of political correctness? The Charles Rangel fellows? (BLACK congressman from New York) Then there is the ambassador in residence program where State hires college professors to recruit students to become Foreign Service Officers. Tutors if you will paid for with your tax dollars if you are American. Of course, you will not find these tutors at a university such as the University of Idaho where you have 6 or 7 universities and colleges to recruit the BEST QUALIFIED. (U. of Idaho, Boise State, Eastern Washington, Gonzaga, Whitman, all within 100 miles of each other) No, you hire these tutors at places like Howard and Morehouse and UCLA and New Mexico State so they can tutor MINORITIES. Few minorities at the University of Idaho. So much for best qualified right?

Then there are the cases where the local employee, like in Mexico City, was selling visas to Colombians to come to the US. Then there was the Foreign Service Officer on the radio in Bogota trying to explain the visa process to Colombians and her Spanish was so bad the taxi driver and my Colombian friend could not understand her!!!! Did I mention the 19 Arab terrorists who somehow got into the United States who State somehow approved? Well, some senior State Department officials are starting to admit that maybe they need to stop moving the employees from one area of the world to another so often and the selection process has changed as well.

I started this post because so many want to live in Colombia and can only seem to teach English. Yet so many can come to our country and in some cases are given the red carpet treatment by our own government.

Sour grapes? Yes, I guess I have some. Nevertheless, the double standards make me sick. No, I am not going to work for the State Department. Too old and too late. I would like to see somebody in this forum do something other than teach English in Colombia and if Colombia, Mexico etc cannot accommadate our people the way we do theirs then why should we do so called Free Trade deals with them! That goes for Australia, Canada, Belguim and the rest!

Joel, as a government employee you WORK for me! BTW Don't let those embassy employees push you around in Bogota if you are a US citizen! That is your embassy! They work for you and you tell them that!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

mranderson says on Jun 15, 2008, 09:43:

Sanandressi how do I not let embassy employees push me around? When I went to bogota I hard a very hard time getting in the gate with my blue passport. The colombian guards don't speak a word of english and they wouldnt admit me without an appointment. I screamed at them for half an hour and all that got me was inside the gate to use a telephone. Even then I could not talk to an american citizen on the phone. If I raised my voice past a whisper they just hang up immediately.

So how do I tell them that the embassy is there for me? If I say they work for me they laugh at me. I'm convinced that the embassy is only there for the colombians.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Joel y Luza says on Jun 15, 2008, 10:02:

sanandressi-you are exactly right, and I would not argue with you at all. My point is, if you are a GS, (or similar pay schedule), and you take a position overseas, or are hired for an overseas assignment, then the US payscale should apply. If a company is hiring off the local market, then the local market should dictate salaries.

First, I don't work for the state department, and the way our foreign policy is, currently, i don't know if I would, from an ethics stand point. I work for an agency that is primarily domestic, but we have a presence at every embassy. To get there is highly competitive, but is it free of nepotism? Since i am not a decision maker, in that area, I couldn't tell you...

Go to USAJOBS.gov and look for some entry level overseas positions. Surprising what you find. There was a whole section of courier positions for the State Department. They paid about $30k a year/plus per diem. you just had to commit to world wide travel and be able to obtain a secret security clearance. Totally competitive.

cheers, and I didn't mean any offense to you Sanandressi and your post

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on Jun 15, 2008, 10:43:

It gets even better....go to the US Embassy Bogota website and click on the Human Resources section and look at the jobs they are creating for their kids (US government employees) ages 16 to 24. Summer jobs for their kids at taxpayer expense. I am not kidding. This is what I pay taxes for....?

Good luck finding a jobb teching English.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on Jun 15, 2008, 10:59:

mranderson, you were treated that way because the arrogant State Department Americans have told the Colombian employees to act like that. If the US Congress cut off funding for State 0 I would not shed a single tear. ($700 million for a new embassy in Baghdad mind you...gold toilets?)

Those State Department Americans who hung up on you need to be reprimanded but since they are such elitist snobs based in a foreign land they can get way with it! You could call your Congressmen.

I knew a US citizen who lost his passport in Jamaica and the US embassy did nothing for him. In his case he called back to his Congresssman's office FROM Jamaica and they did more for him then the embassy did or so he said.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cheers Terry says on Jun 15, 2008, 11:11:

You're being very careful to ignore (or dance around) some of the reasonable comments regarding remuneration made earlier in this thread.

And one second-hand anecdote about the Jamaican Embassy is nothing more than yet another red herring.

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 15, 2008, 11:52:

Wow...

Sour grapes? Do you think? One can see your sense of personal responsibility in everything you write:

S: "I had taken the Foreign Service Officer examination 6 or 7 years earlier along with 30,000 others worldwide. I was denied the next step process of oral interview. Most of we 30,000 were as well."

In otherwords, you failed the test. Which is why you weren't hired.

You know S, I have my own issues with many of the things that you challenge. I see eye to eye with you on affirmative action, for example. I'd like to see that changed.

And I suppose what you are describing is nepotism... but it's an odd kind of nepotism that you describe. It applies to spouse's of FSO... nobody else. For example, if you had a brother, an uncle, a friend in the Foreign Service... it wouldn't help you get hired in the least. But if you were living over seas and your wife was working at a mission, ya, they'd try to find a job for you...

I find your refusal to see why this is in DOS interest willfull and just a little bit childish:

S: "If the trailing spouse cannot give up their jobs here in the United States to follow hubby or wife then the hubby or wife should quit the State Department and do something else."

Yep. And many do.

And you're right... there are plenty of people eager to take their jobs. But those people won't come with the experience and the training that those they are replacing had. That's the hole in your logic.

You seem to imagine that it doesn't matter, that you could just leap in and replace a diplomat of 5 or 10 years experience. You can't. It does matter. And it will take a big investment in time and money before you can be effective, which is why State pursues this policy. It's cheaper to pay a premium to the spouses...

Believe me, anybody who's had the pleasure of working for a Federal Agency will tell you that they are not throwing around money and benefits because they are worried about the tender feelings of their employees. It all comes down to simple management science: what do we have to do to keep the talent we need?

So far as you're tales of lousy customer service? I don't doubt them for a moment. And I agree that its gross. I'd love to see it fixed. I first understood in 2002, when I went to our embassy in Panama for help in cashing a check - not to borrow, or beg money, just to access my own funds - that those missions aren't really there to help Americans. They try... but that's not their purpose.

I'm curious S... what do you think those embassies and consulates are there to do? What is their main purpose?

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cheers Terry says on Jun 15, 2008, 12:57:

Embassies and Consulates have very specific purposes. They don't exist to coddle travelers who've screwed up because they didn't research their destination properly, or broke a law in a foreign country. They're not banks and they're not babysitters. Do many of them provide poor service? Of course... but cashing a cheque is not their job.

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 15, 2008, 13:19:

He he he he...

That's the truth. Of course, helping out distressed Americans is *nominally* one of their jobs... and I'd like to see them try a little harder. After all... they'll give us a loan to get home if we need it, believe it or not, they will help - not coddle - travellers and even residents who haven't researched their destination properly, been robbed or swindled, or are just otherwise down on their luck with no other recourse... could they not confirm and cash a check in an emergency?

But you are, of course correct. The answer is, they won't. Or at least the Consular Officer I met wouldn't...

Mostly, because he wasn't paying attention. He was more focused on that specific purpose you note...which _I_ note you have avoided describing.

What would you say it is Sr. Cheerful Terry?

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cheers Terry says on Jun 15, 2008, 13:57:

For both tourists and business travelers the embassy's resources can initially appear quite vast. Read all about it here: http://www.state.gov/travelandbusiness/

In reality, a lot of that information is simple common sense travel advice, and cover-their-ass warnings about situations that don't really exist.

My point is that too many tourists think their Embassy should do double duty at a Travel Agent, Bank, Lawyer, etc. - all kinds of babysitting services. The average traveler who is well prepared can travel for years and years and years through a myriad of countries and never visit their Embassy more than a few times - and even then it's only a simple stop to acquire supporting paperwork for a visa, etc.

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cheers Terry says on Jun 15, 2008, 14:11:

You might get a chuckle from this... I met a nice American couple in Havana who even though they knew all about the Embargo and "illegality" of tourist travel to Cuba they still budgeted their entire vacation through their American based credit cards. I ran into them at the US Special Interests (the de facto US embassy) in Havana where they were being thrown out because they assaulted the official there who refused to give them a cash advance on the their US credit cards. They were screaming how they were going to sue everyone in sight. Too frigging funny...

Did the US Embassy act poorly? Did they withhold banking services that should have been available? You tell me...

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 15, 2008, 14:22:

Well, come on Terry...

Obviously providing a cash advance for an illegal activity isn't part of State's mandate.

But you seem to be mirroring Sanandressi debate technique.

1) You haven't answered my question. I'd love to hear that. Are you afraid somebody is tracking your online ID?

2) You're responding to complaints about poor service regarding basic tasks that the Missions ARE supposed to provide - by law - by conflating those services with things they are not.

Obviously, the Missions aren't banks, travel agents, or baby sitters.

That would be called a "straw man."

And yes... I agree with you. I traveled all my life mostly without even an awareness of the State Department. I think in '90 I got a replacement passport at a Consulate in Munich, and in 2001 I went to the embassy in Panama seeking to cash a check because - having lost everything but my passport and checkbook - I had no other way to get by.

The Consular Officer I met refused to help: fortunately, the Coast Guard detachment was far more responsive, and everything worked out, at my expense.

I now know, years later, that yes, the Consular Officer actually did have the power to help... he wasn't as well trained in the rules of his own bureaucracy as he should have been, and justification for loaning me the funds I needed was there... I could have paid immediately by check, which is much the same as... cashing a check.

So it goes.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cheers Terry says on Jun 15, 2008, 14:41:

Regarding your Point #1... Sorry, what was your question that I'm ignoring? Was it this? "... He was more focused on that specific purpose you note...which _I_ note you have avoided describing... What would you say it is Sr. Cheerful Terry?..."

I gave you a link that describes EXACTLY the services an Embassy provides. What more do you want?

Regarding your point #2... I never said that Embassies shouldn't give better service, only that much of the time they're expected to provide babysitting services that are (of course) ridiculous.

You seem to be questioning all my statements, then turning around and agreeing with all of them by the end of your posts...

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 15, 2008, 15:15:

"You seem to be questioning all my statements, then turning around and agreeing with all of them by the end of your posts..."

Oh, I wouldn't characterize it that way. Are you feeling defensive Cheerful Terry?

Ya, you gave me a link that describes the services and Embassy provides. It would be passing naive to imagine that that list describes the purpose of an embassy.

An artful dodge, but a dodge nonetheless.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cheers Terry says on Jun 15, 2008, 15:31:

So the link describes all the services an Embassy provides... but that's not enough for you to determine the purpose...

Riiiiiiight...

Carry on then! ;-)

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 18, 2008, 16:05:

Right.

(Without the sarcasm.)

It's not a bad starting point Terry. Neither is a corporation's mission statement. It's probably as accurate, too.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cheers Terry says on Jun 18, 2008, 17:08:

A mission statement is the worst place to start. It's nothing more than corporate spin doctoring - something to put in their annual report to make them appear like they're working their nuts off for their shareholders, while still treating their employees fairly and being a good corporate member of the community. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what's really happening behind the closed boardroom doors.

An Embassy/Consulate is not a complex environment. The link lays out their (claimed) resources and services very clearly. I think you're just bored and having some fun now, trying to make something out of nothing.

We should talk about something mildly amusing, or at least interesting...

Cheers,
Terry

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 21, 2008, 10:01:

Nope. You´re strike me as a smart guy, but you are tad mistaken here.

As I said, your assesment is about useful a starting point as a mission statement. And I think you´ve done a pretty good job of describing a mission statement.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.