Attached is a chart which indicates the distribution, as of June 30, 1963, of employees among the various steps by salary level. It will cost about $2 million to provide annual step increases. On the attached chart I have italicized the group that would immediately benefit. These are employees already in step 4, 5, and 6 who now must wait 2 years before going to their next step.

Once again, while we recognize "inequities," we believe the situation is of such importance to the total Federal pay structure that it is worthy of separate consideration at a later date and that we should not defer progress on the basic pay bill which has our wholehearted endorsement.

The CHAIRMAN. Would there be any way to increase No. 7 a little bit?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, we did do one thing there, Senator Johnston. In the new Morrison bill, 11049, you will note that level 7 has an additional step added to it in level 7 to try to give them a little more advancement. This was in the original proposal of the administration, and had been knocked out when the bill was passed last time, but we went along with the request of the supervisors that we try to include that this time, and we have gone along with that, so we do think we have made some effort along that line.

Of course, any bill, you know, can't just get every level the way everybody would like it, but we do think the Morrison bill is a pretty doggone good bill, and comes pretty close to what we like.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, a further question.

Mr. Murphy, is it your feeling that the level of efficiency and service within the Department is lessened by failure of the Congress to recognize the needs and to institute action to raise these salaries?

Mr. MURPHY. I think there is no question about that, Senator Randolph. As a matter of fact, I stated in my written testimony on Monday that the Department is very cost conscious, especially this year, and we are very economy conscious, and we are going to make economies in the postal service wherever we possibly can without reducing essential service, but one area that we do not think we should economize on, or we should pay substandard wages, is in the area of our pay of our employees.

We must pay our employees, we feel, in order to maintain a high level of morale and efficiency, a level comparable to jobs in private industry, and for that reason, the President is supporting this pay raise, even though we are a very economy-minded group currently in the Post Office.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I subscribe wholly in the statement of Mr. Murphy.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

The bell has rung for adjournment, so I guess we will have to adjourn this meeting.

We will reconvene Monday at 9 o'clock.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Senator, for having this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 10 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene on Monday, May 18, 1964.)

FEDERAL PAY LEGISLATION

MONDAY, MAY 18, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 6202, New Senate Office Building, Senator Olin D. Johnston (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Johnston, Monroney, Carlson, Fong, and Boggs. Also present: William P. Gulledge, staff director and counsel; Richard Fuller, professional staff member; David Minton, staff member; and Frank A. Paschal, minority clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We are convening this morning so that the committee may continue to hear further testimony on Federal pay legislation. As usual in this series of hearings, we will adjourn at 10 a.m., when the Senate

convenes.

Senator Randolph, of West Virginia, is necessarily absent from today's hearing, because he is conducting a hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Roads of which he is chairman-on important pending highway legislation.

Our first scheduled witness today is the distinguished Senate minority leader, Senator Dirksen, but he won't be here for a few minutes. I am going ahead with the hearing, but when he comes in whoever is testifying will be interrupted and Senator Dirksen will be allowed to testify, then we will return to the other witness. The witness I am calling now is Mr. John Snyder, president of the National Association of Postmasters.

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. SNYDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John P. Snyder, and I am executive director of the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, having served in this capacity since March 1 of this year. I may add that I am on administrative leave as postmaster at Oconomowoc, Wis.

D.C.,

With me is Roy M. North, former postmaster of Washington, our legislative representative. The president of our association, David R. Trevithick, postmaster of Salt Lake City, joins us in support of this statement and regrets he cannot be here because of other official duties.

Our association represents 93.1 percent of all postmasters of the United States, comprising all classes.

32-884-64——14

203

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, off the record, I would like to state that in my office, I have served for 30 years a city of 7,000 population and many of the postmasters of the Nation are in that category, doing practically the same volume of business, so I feel I personally speak for a significant number of postmasters of the Nation.

We appreciate your promptness, Mr. Chairman, in holding these hearings on pay legislation of 1964.

We are most appreciative of the support for this legislation by the administration, particularly the many references by President Johnson to the need for pay increases to Government personnel. As you know, President Johnson has indicated that this is one of the must pieces of legislation he would like to see passed this year.

On April 30, 1964, the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee reported favorably H.R. 11049 on the subject of pay adjustments. We understand that a rule will shortly be asked in order that the measure may be promptly brought up on the House floor.

This bill has many worthwhile features in that it recognizes the long overdue needed increases in pay for the lower levels as well as for the higher echelons of the postal field service schedule. However, the principle of comparability is not completely carried out in levels 6 to 15, an inequity which has already been commented upon by more than one Government witness.

We further understand that this measure as drawn will fall short of reaching the cost figure set for this purpose by the President of some $10 to $15 million. We are hopeful that this committee in its wisdom and good judgment will pursue the policy of comparability as clearly defined in the very language of the salary reform provisions of Public Law 87-793, enacted last year and provide the necessary increases for these levels.

There is little else I can say regarding the pay schedules; therefore my purpose of appearing here before you today is threefold. First, to endorse the pay schedules as proposed in H.R. 11049; second, to bring forth for your consideration certain inequities which we believe call for urgent adjustment; and third, to comment on certain features of postal pay administration and structure.

Regarding certain pay inequities: levels 1 to 7 now have 1-year step intervals. We feel that levels 8 to 18 should have the same benefits. This inequity has resulted in many postmasters receiving an extremely small pay differential over their subordinates.

As provided in Public Law 87-793, it takes 9 years for an employee to advance from the first step to step 7 in levels 8 to 18. Step 7 is a substantial pay situation for a capable and efficient employee and we see no reason why it should take 9 years to reach this point. This, of course, requires an amendment to section 705 of Public Law 87-793. In addition to pay adjustments and the corrected changes described herein, we are most interested in the significant changes in pay administration of great importance to postmasters. These changes relate to, (1) the use of "revenue units" in lieu of the figure of receipts and (2) a new plan for computing pay of postmasters at fourth-class offices.

The reasoning for the new procedure providing for the use of "revenue credits" in place of postage revenue in existing law has

been explained in detail by Assistant Postmaster General Murphy on May 7. We believe that the new method will be easier to administer and eliminates the reduced figure of gross postal receipts.

We have been assured that on conversion to this plan, postmasters will not be downgraded, and we are equally sure that no office will be significantly upgraded. However, the new plan will include all revenues of an office, including money order fees and other financial transactions. This should be pleasing to postmasters.

The new procedure for fourth-class offices is significant and long overdue and will provide them with a salary that recognizes their value and worth to the U.S. Government. These postmasters have been the lowest paid personnel of the postal service, even lower than custodial employees, and we have continuously striven for pay benefits to these dedicated and faithful officials of the Government. They are invariably the sole representative of the Government in their locality and are called upon for many civic activities.

Their duties are as varied as those at a larger office if not as extensive, and the postmaster at the smaller office has no clerical assistance and must be well versed in all postal regulations incident to his daily duties.

The new plan relates the fourth-class office to level 5 and proposes to pay these postmasters a pro rata amount of the annual rate for level 5 for necessary hours of duty which meets the need of the community served. For instance, if only 2 hours is required, the postmaster would receive one-fourth of the level 5 pay. Also, the postmaster may receive an allowance of 15 percent of level 5 or he may be furnished the necessary facilities. This should mean better quarters for small offices.

We support these benefits to the small offices.

While a 5-day workweek for postmasters was proposed in previous pay legislation, now two bills, H.R. 10734 and S. 1563, provide this benefit in separate legislation, and we hope for favorable consideration at an appropriate date.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we know we are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and all we ask is that we be given pay for 5 days time in which we physically report to the office.

With the changes described, (1) correction of pay inequity in levels 6 to 15; and (2) 1-year intervals for step increases to step 7 in levels 8 to 18, we strongly support and urge early passage of H.R. 11049. Many thanks, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for your kindness in permitting this testimony today.

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly appreciate your coming before us this morning. Are there any questions?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. I notice here that you state your organization has 93.1 percent of all postmasters.

Mr. SNYDER. That is active members. It does not include retired postmasters who are associate members.

The CHAIRMAN. How many members does the National League of Postmasters have?

Mr. SNYDER. I do not know. There is a good many that belong to both associations; there is some overlap.