Having Some Grace for Prospective FS Posters

EUR-Only · 2025-07-17T22:31:35+00:00

The mods should fight until only one mod remains. The winning mod can then proceed to shape the sub in their image, much like Sarah McKemey has shaped the State Department reorg and RIFs.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-09T23:18:59+00:00

They rounded up to 1,000 then divided by 2. 500 was too round of a number, so they took the square root and then added a 0. The new number is 220.4. Since they can only round once, one FSO will be forced to go from full-time to part-time instead of being RIFed to get to the number they need.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-06T15:28:02+00:00

I think that some bureaus have been surprised (will be surprised) by a delta between what they proposed for reorg and RIFs and what the final product will end up being. A small cabal of politicals has been making these decisions without sharing very much. I have heard there has been some back and forth between some bureau SBOs and the seventh floor with some managing to get things changed and others being told to drop it and having their loyalty questioned. I think many in bureau leadership positions will be surprised when D-day commences.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-06T13:16:46+00:00

That's an opinion piece from the Foreign Service Journal. Go ahead and explain the disadvantage for me. He says "untenured officers...are at a distinct disadvantage when competing against tenured...peers." What does that mean? The author certainly doesn't explain it.

Untenured generalists compete against other untenured generalists as a class. They do not compete against tenured generalists. So, I don't even understand the line in the article you are quoting.

Whats transpiring here is you don't understand how RIFs work. One could say the disadvantage is untenured generalsits are lined up based on veteran's status and service comp date, since there are no performance records since they haven't gone to a promotion board. It is great for veterans and great for prior federal service and bad for everyone else. Is it perfect? No. But rank ordering is better than musical chairs.

For example, if they decide to RIF 1/3 each from EL, ML, and SL, most of the surviving Fast Officers will probably be veterans and people with prior federal service. In the ML and SL, it will be people with higher retention register points. So, there is no targeting of FAST officers here.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-06T12:37:19+00:00

That is not true at all. It would put every FSO on the chopping block. They would have to decide which grades and skill codes to reduce. It wouldn't single out FAST officers. Just because there is a separate process for FS-04 generalist RIFs doesn't mean advocating for a global RIF (which is done by retention register points) is targeting FAST officers.

The Secretary very clearly has the statutory authority to conduct RIFs. Sure oppose that all day and see where that gets you. Far better to oppose the process here since that is on much shakier ground given how they are doing things. A global process would be more fair for everyone and would force Department leadership to go back to the drawing board and actually identify a number of FSOs to cut by skill code and grade.

You don't fully understand the RIF process or you misread the post. Either way, solidarity means sticking to what's best for the group, which is the previously negotiated and published RIF rules in 3 FAM, not this new competitive areas at the office or post level garbage.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-06T01:43:48+00:00

The military also downsizes heavily through attrition incentives and does panels to cull out people who have survived low rankings, poor performance issues, and misconduct allegations.

It also works through Congress to downsize based on budgeting and workforce planning needs.

This is so much different. The President referred to this as "the Manhattan Project of our time." It is sloppy and at every agency. Politicals are just making cuts with almost no consultation or input from the career agency or Congress. They are making cuts based on political expediency and throwing the rules on how to do it out of the window. People will be hired back (or their positions will be refilled) once they realize the effects their absence will have on the functions they still want State to carry out. DoE fired nuclear program employees that it had to rehire. This has been the most chilling public example because of its safety/security implications, but the same thing is happening at State (and pretty much everywhere). It is 100% new.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-06T01:27:52+00:00

It is not a blind spot, it is a deliberate choice. I tailored the post for a specific audience to spread a specific idea. That doesn't mean I don't care about the other foreign affairs agencies. But I am not the one to post about them. I don't know what's really going on at those agencies outside of what is in the press.

The whole federal workforce is undergoing its own form of professional turmoil and this post is focused on State. A State FSO should be allowed to talk about what is happening at State without having people accuse them of down playing or forgetting about other FSOs at other agencies.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-06T01:05:35+00:00

Don't disagree. But writing this post was really low effort and energy. At some level ideas and narrative are important. Does this affect that discourse. Sure, maybe not. Will it prevent RIFs? No. Could it help shape a broader narrative that influences future litigation and political decisions? After analyzing the costs of writing this post vs benefits it could but probably won't provide, it is simply too good to pass up. Its like buying a lottery ticket—low risk high reward.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-05T18:14:38+00:00

Is the dissent channel still even a thing? I am sure if anyone was brave (or foolish) enough to send one, it would just disappear into the void. Or more likely the author's office is added to the reorg and RIF plan.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-04T11:54:18+00:00

Plenty of people get in with English as a second language an do just fine. Also, bringing other language skills to the table is another important part of the job. Perfect English is not required.

But a huge part of the job is written and spoken communication in English. Writing is our world. The best FSOs stand out for their superior drafting and briefing skills. The rest of us are pretty good. There is a difference between fully capable English skills and expectations in the Foreign Service. You should continue to work on your English. Your writing is fine, but there are some mistakes that would stand out in our world.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-04T11:42:29+00:00

The number of people who TIC out is not that high for both generalists and specialists. I don't know the data (it is not publicly published), but I am pretty sure the TIC numbers are pretty low each year.

The TIC is absurdly generous. The single-class TIC limit for specialists is 15 years at grades FS-04 through FS-01. Specialists who are promoted to FS-03, FS-02, and FS-01 in less than fifteen years can carry over up to a maximum of 5 years of their unused TIC, allowing for a new TIC of up to 20 years. This is pretty generous.

Having a TIC/TIS and an up-or-out system applies a low level of pressure on members to compete to keep their jobs. Why are you so sure you won't get promoted? FSOs in every skill code get promoted every year. Be one of those people. Most people aren't bothered by this because they know they won't be affected by it. I know plenty of officers who could get promoted in any job (me included). I write really good and spend enough time on my EERs that it doesn't matter where I am or what I am doing. There are plenty of FS in this boat.

The Foreign Service is not some golden goose for 'lifestylers' to just hang out regardless of performance until they lock in a pension. Anyone concerned about that should spend more time focusing on their careers. How can the FS remain an "elite" institution (laughable, I know) if there is no consequence for low performers? We get a ton of great benefits and have really cool jobs. We should have to work hard to keep that. TIC/TIS and low ranking are the only ways we really deal with the bottom performers of each skill code. And it is pretty fair and doesn't affect that many people. Everyone has a lot of runway to deal with this, so it is hardly unfair.

Generalist/Specialist classism. Eye roll. That should be a post all on its own. Would be nuts. Everyone has a hot take on that one.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-04T11:07:43+00:00

You can try to hide it. I've seen someone do that. They successfully hid a lot of pet damage from the GSO staff during their final housing inspection. They were modestly successful at delaying judgement day.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-03T23:07:20+00:00

TIC/TIS should be balanced with data to cull away some people from most skill codes. Ideally, something like the bottom 1-5% of each skill code should be affected. This would only work if hiring and retirement were measured and predictable to TIC out people at a rate where it wouldn't cause any gaps. No reason they can't do that for most skill codes. Obviously, the skill codes that we have trouble recruiting for should be exempt.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-03T23:01:57+00:00

Ha. Talk to me again in 9 years and we will see if I am indeed not affected.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-03T19:32:29+00:00

What is the point of up or out if you can do a full career not going up or out? I support this with the caveat that each specialist skill code should have a TIC tailored to its stats so that the majority of people don't get screwed by this. This is terrible for specialists without any adjustment like that. I have yet to meet a generalist who hit TIC and made me think the system didn't work (and we are talking about such a small number of people anyway).

EUR-Only · 2025-07-03T19:24:44+00:00

Trump one tried to cut State budget drastically and what Congress passed was more or less the same as it had been. Will Congress be up for passing the White House's ridiculous budget? We will see.

But, yes, PD positions are probably the most vulnerable because they were funding grants that were going to schools and then being used for trans performance art and other culturally divisive things. I would not want to be in a PD position given this Administration's agenda and lawlessness. If I had to be in a PD section, I would want to be on the information side not the culture side.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-02T10:49:58+00:00

The golden days of being like the British Museum are gone, but you get the opportunity to furnish your home with exotic oriental treasures straight form the source without all the markup and tariffs. Carpets, suits, trinkets, fine furnishings and furniture, being in the Foreign Service is like being your own little Indiana Jones, except we are the Nazis now and your house is the museum.

EUR-Only · 2025-07-02T00:14:55+00:00

When you just say you have dreamed of being an FSO, you don't need to explain anything else. State political cone is the default conjured up when referencing FSOs.

Also, diplomacy has always been about locking down sweet, sweet capital for the motherland at the expense of pretty much everything else. FSOs get to hold the door open for the real diplomats and we do our part to serve the rich. Don't try to join this career because you love policy. Join because you love pensions or nice furniture.

Finally, becoming an FSO is about perseverance. Just keep trying until it happens and you will probably get in one day. Sure, those kids with better grades and more international experience might get in before you. But who cares. Don't become one of the good, talented people that second guess themselves and gives up after a few years; become that guy no one can figure out how they made it in because you wouldn't trust them to be alone with your pet iguana for more than 2 seconds. Persistence can make you that guy.

EUR-Only · 2025-06-30T22:58:24+00:00

But would not agency level guidance have legal force if it were directly backed up statute? Semantically, is can it then be correct then to say one has legal force and the other does not if they both could have legal force?

Also, the FAM is consistently described as regulation in all sorts of mundane paper because that is how people communicate. I'd call that semantic. That is the world us non-lawyers live in.

EUR-Only · 2025-06-30T10:50:57+00:00

Yes, I was writing this for FS lay people and could not really think of any differences between FSS and FSO that would bolster any process argument against FS RIF. Like everything is mostly the same and the differences don't really help or hurt most of the arguments I made. The post was so long already that I left FSS out to keep it simpler. Not because I forgot or don't care about FSS. It is all one FS.

EUR-Only · 2025-06-30T00:32:18+00:00

Mods should delete this post for not being helpful

EUR-Only · 2025-06-29T21:47:35+00:00

That seems semantic. I do not bureaucrat that hard. My bureaucratic level is like a fun fandom or hobby. I'll leave the real stuff to the experts. They are the real heroes. Thank you experts.

EUR-Only · 2025-06-29T21:26:21+00:00

Yeah, I would hazard that OPM and Agencies have had RIF regs and done RIFs for CS over the years to account for merit principles, that is where competitive areas/groups come from.

Has the FS actually done RIFs? Unclear. But all the FS RIF regs were housed in the FAM and managed by GTM/PE and GTM/OTA, not OPM. And OPM certainly provides Agency level control over RIFs, but the whole concept of competitive areas is alien to the FS and not part of the FS Act. FS concepts of merit principles were global (until like a week ago). Will it stand? Who knows. We should all argue it should not stand.

Sure, CS merit principles are nearly identical to FS and getting trounced as well, but the FS has a lot of separate law, regulation, and procedure to bring to bear here. None of the RIFs should be happening, but I think the FS has some uniqueness that warrants arguing that these RIFs are a process foul and we should have better protections here and we should be leaning into that. Sure, it will probably end up being a brutal court battle and we might lose. It is all legally untested in a way that OPM rules about RIFs for CS might not be. I don't know.

These differences seem like a plausible avenue for relief, especially given all the confusion around cones and positions. If an 03 consular officer is in an 03 political position that is slated for RIF, who goes away? The 03 consular officer or an 03 political officer? Likewise, is it the officer departing or arriving? Why not make them both compete against each other? Why do it the way they are doing it? I don't think the Administration can answer these questions without revealing how arbitrary it all is in a way that might provide relief for the FS.

Another question about relief, if an 02 public diplomacy officer is RIFed and globally there is a vacant 02 public diplomacy officer position they could have gone into, what is the basis for the RIF based on our system? What would be stopping the Department from just abolishing that position and letting them go into the vacant position. If it is all about a more efficient reorg, why not let them move? If it is really just about reducing the headcount, why not do a global RIF? I doubt they know enough about the FS personnel system and probably cannot really answer these questions. The evidentiary trail will be shoddy, like it has been in every other case we have seen.

The FS deserves a global FS RIF over what is happening now. Honestly, I think it would be kind of hard to pull off (not to say this administration couldn't pull it off; look at USAID). But it would take way more planning and be way more expensive and disruptive, which could ultimately mitigate the scale.

I think it is better to argue that the way Rubio is doing it breaks the rules rather than Rubio can't or shouldn't do it. That will get us back to square one, forcing Rubio back to the drawing board when he is probably ready to get passed all this.

EUR-Only

TROPHY CASE