Mr. VAN ZANDT. Admiral, you have indicated that the sole purpose of this legislation is to establish a uniformity in the handling of wage questions, is that correct?

Admiral CRONIN. Yes.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. There must be other reasons. What would stem from uniformity? Would there be any advantage to the Navy? Would it save the taxpayer money?

At the same time, let's go to the other side: What disadvantages would it develop?

Admiral CRONIN. Mr. Van Zandt, we very frequently have questions asked of us, sometimes by the interested employees and sometimes by their representatives, why can't we do a certain thing if the Army and the Air Force do it that way. It is a logical question. It is very difficult to answer if we are doing it differently.

The President's Adviser on Personnel has asked all agencies, and specifically the Department of Defense in the case of the military departments, to do all they can to put into line all of their practices with respect to wage matters.

This is just one step in that process of really complying with the administration's directive to be uniform.

Now, I assure you, Mr. Van Zandt, the Navy would never consider suggesting legislation that would in any way have an adverse effect on our employees without having had the employees viewpoint in order to get their reactions. However, we couldn't visualize at the time we requested that this legislation be introduced, nor can I visualize now, how this can have any effect whatsoever adverse to our employees.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. In other words, you introduced this bill for the purpose of establishing uniformity throughout the Government in dealing with employees at military establishments and that you know of no adverse effects that would be suffered by the personnel concerned?

Admiral CRONIN. Absolutely. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Now, am I to understand, then, that the only benefit that the Government will enjoy from this bill if it should be enacted into law, is uniformity?

Admiral CRONIN. Yes, sir, and from that uniformity derives, as I indicated in the statement, a little more logical treatment of certain areas where we have differences now-for example, we do have in a few areas and I quoted one in San Francisco-where we are actually paying a few of our employees somewhat less than the Army and the Air Force, because of the fact that our law does not permit us to use rates from anybody but private industry.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Then in the case of San Francisco, if this law were repealed, through the enactment of this bill, it would be possible for you to raise the blue-collar workers to a higher level of pay, is that correct?

Admiral CRONIN. Yes, sir. It would be possible for us to survey the State, county, and municipal institutions where the rates are higher and have resulted in the Army and Air Force paying higher

rates.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. What other area do you have in mind? You said San Francisco. Do you have any other area?

Admiral CRONIN. I have that as one example. Perhaps Mr. Gardner could answer that.

Mr. GARDNER. I am Thomas L. Gardner, Office of Industrial Relations.

We have about three other areas of joint interest with the Army and the Air Force, where there could be an effect. One is MinneapolisSt. Paul, where the Army and Air Force take in certain governmental jurisdictions. However, that again would work to the benefit of the workers of the Navy. There would be a slight increase if we could use the same data.

Another place where it would have no effect, because we actually just take the Army rates, is in Alaska.

Another place where perhaps rates would drop a half-cent or a penny-and this is the only adverse area I know of-would be in our Territory of Puerto Rico.

With our different systems, we probably would just about come out even anyhow, so I don't think even that would be unfavorable.

Now, within the Army and Air Force areas where we have no interests, there are a few small areas where they use governmental entities for information. And in some it might raise a little; in others it might lower a little.

I would say in any case, the difference would be very small.

In our San Francisco area on the laundry, that is a special type of survey for a special group. It probably would be to our benefit at the washman level-that is what we use as the standard benchmark, or pegging level.

Mr. RIVERS. What is that?

Mr. GARDNER. The washmen in the laundry. It would probably amount to as much as 4 cents. That is the only area we know of. That is why it was given in the illustration where there would be a difference. That would be for the special category of workers in the laundry.

Mr. RIVERS. Why wouldn't it be just as sensible for you gentlemen to come in here and ask that the present law be amended to give you the right to take this wider circumference of investigation of wages to determine?

Admiral CRONIN. May I answer that, sir?

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

Admiral CRONIN. Mr. Chairman, the Navy is the only one of all the agencies, the only one of the three military departments that has this special law, and all of the other agencies with a very few minor exceptions, are covered by the Classification Act.

It seems to us completely logical and orderly to have the Navy, whose employees are governed by other rules, the same as the other agencies, to have the same wage-setting law. We see no reason why it should be different. That is the main reason for our making the request for the amendment of that part of the act.

Mr. RIVERS. But it has been going on since 1862, and you say you are getting along very well under it.

It looks to me like you would want a little more latitude and then you would have it made.

Admiral CRONIN. Actually, those aren't too important exceptions. We are not too concerned about those. We have small differences in our treatment, not because of the different law but because of the way

we handle our method of computing with the Army and the Air Force, in other areas, as well.

Those differences aren't significant. It is merely that we feel we should have an orderly, uniform procedure governed by one law for all agencies.

Mr. RIVERS. Mainly you want uniformity?

Admiral CRONIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is all.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Winstead?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Admiral, how many other variations do you have? I know you want uniformity in this. Do you have any other special legislation that affects the Navy differently from what it does the Army and the Air Force, in any other field?

Admiral CRONIN. We have one other law which was codified at the same time as this law of 1862, with respect to the requirement for the Secretary of the Navy to make a determination 60 days before a national election, that it is in the public interest before any additional hires are made.

The Navy is the only agency of the Government, so far as we know, which has that provision. No other agency has that. We are also asking for the repeal of that.

Mr. WINSTEAD. What about the other services, do they have any special legislation in the Air Force and Army?

Admiral CRONIN. Certainly not in this area of personnel.
Mr. GARDNER. Could I speak up there, Admiral?

We do have one law which applies to the dean of our postgraduate school at Monterey, where his salary has been set by law. That is different than the Air Force school at Denver, or West Point for the Army. But that has no bearing upon the wage board side of the picture.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Do I understand, then, that the Department of Defense will recommend the change of all the laws we have where there is any variation with any of the services? You represent the Department of Defense and you want to change this mainly because there is a difference.

I wonder if it would be the position of the Department of Defense that all laws be uniform with all branches of the service.

Admiral CRONIN. Mr. Winstead, I am representing them only with respect to this bill, and I will certainly look into that and see what the attitude of the Department of Defense is with respect to the other laws.

I would like to say it was the Navy, however, Mr. Winstead, which initiated this request, and not the Department of Defense.

Mr. WINSTEAD. As I understand, the main purpose is to have uniformity there and it really won't make any important difference in saving money in our own personnel or anything else, except for the fact that you will have uniformity.

Admiral CRONIN. It is a little more than satisfaction; I think it is an orderly way to do business, but your statement is exactly correct. It is for uniformity that we have introduced the request for the repeal. Mr. RIVERS. If this bill were passed for the sake of uniformity and if it were to cause widespread dissension in the ranks of the various crafts in these naval installations, would you favor it then?

34066-59-No. 9 -2

Admiral CRONIN. No, sir; I certainly would not.

Mr. RIVERS. For the sake of uniformity would you like to be under the selective system that the Air Force operates under?

Admiral CRONIN. I could not answer to that.

Mr. RIVERS. We don't have uniformity throughout the Government, as you understand.

Admiral CRONIN. I don't believe that is any argument for not trying. Mr. RIVERS. I introduced a bill one time to create a Dental Corps in the Navy, and the morale of the Navy dentists is the best in the service. And now they want me to try to get the thing for the Air Force and the Army.

Admiral CRONIN. That is progress, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RIVERS. That is progress.

Sometimes I am identified with progress, too. We are not all reactionaries from down south.

But the morale of the Navy today is a thousand times above the other services in dentistry, and I have never heard the President make a statement on trying to get that uniformity, or anybody else in high authority. I might say any President-this present President or the others.

So we don't have uniformity throughout the services, as you know, Admiral Cronin.

Any questions, Mrs. St. George?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Admiral, from your statement, I gather there would be very little change if this section were repealed, in the way you would be handling this whole situation.

It is merely done to conform to the other services and to bring about uniformity; is that true? In other words, you wouldn't change in any way the way you handle these wage boards. You would still conform to what is said in your opening statement

Other provisions of law to conform as nearly as is consistent with the public interest with those of private establishments in the immediate vicinity— which is the crux of the whole thing; is that correct?

Admiral CRONIN. Yes, ma'am. There is nothing in that law which dictates in any way the details of how we handle our wage-fixing procedures. They can be the same as the Army and the Air Force, or they can be different under their law or under our law.

There is no requirement in this law that has anything whatsoever to do with the way we operate insofar as collecting data, evaluating the data, and setting the wage schedule is concerned.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. But you do not feel that repealing this section would in any way take away anything from the employees that they have at the present time?

Admiral CRONIN. No, ma'am; I do not. It would have absolutely nothing to do with the employees' rights.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. How many employees are under the Navy wage boards at the present time?

Admiral CRONIN. About 230,000.

Mrs. St. GEORGE. And how many under the civil service wage board?

Admiral CRONIN. In the classified area, the graded, there are about 130,000. A total of 360,000.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. So you have a good many more under the Navy board?

Admiral CRONIN. Almost twice as many.

Mr. RIVERS. How many in the Army and the Air Force; do you know?

Admiral CRONIN. I am sorry I don't have those figures now, sir, but the Army has more total than we do. The Air Force has a little less. But they both have a little less wage board, or blue-collar workers than we do I am sorry.

The Army has a little more now. It varies quite a little bit. I will be very happy to furnish those figures to the committee.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be interesting to have those figures, because it would give us a clearer picture. (The information requested is as follows:)

Hon. L. MENDEL RIVERS,

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 19, 1959.

MY DEAR MR. RIVERS: At the February 17 subcommittee hearing on H.R. 3367 I promised to furnish information regarding civilian employment in the respective military departments by wage board and Classification Act categories. following figures represent the on-board count as of December 31, 1958:

The

Also includes Military Sea Transportation Service.

Includes "Other" Breakdown between Classification Act and "Other" collected only once a year and, therefore, not immediately available.

I will be very happy to furnish further information if desired.
Sincerely yours,

R. E. CRONIN,

Rear Admiral, USN, Chief of Industrial Relations.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Fisher.

Mr. FISHER. Admiral, I gather from what you said, if this was enacted you would not anticipate any reduction in the wage rates of the employees affected by it?

Admiral CRONIN. Absolutely not. This would have no effect on it whatsoever.

Mr. FISHER. That is all.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chamberlain.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral, you state that you have been getting along under this act here since 1862.

When did it first occur to you that this ought to be repealed? In other words, has the Navy been after this in years past and is coming back again to get this change, or is this the first time that you have been up here to have this corrected?

Admiral CRONIN. Mr. Chamberlain, over the years the Navy hasthat is, since the Classification Act of 1949-recognized that there is a slight inconsistency insofar as having two of the branches of the Department of Defense, or the military departments, working under one law and the Navy under one.