CONFORMITY WITH LEGISLATIVE POLICY

When the Congress enacted Public Law 87-793, it made a "declaration of policy" with reference to the fixing of salaries under the various Federal salary systems. That policy is stated in section 502 of the act as follows:

"SEC. 502. The Congress hereby declares that, whereas the functions of a Federal salary system are to fix salary rates for the services rendered by Federal employees so as to make possible the employment of persons well qualified to conduct the Government's programs and to control expenditures of public funds for personal services with equity to the employee and to the taxpayer, and whereas fulfillment of these functions is essential to the development and maintenance of maximum proficiency in the civilian services of Government, then, accordingly, Federal salary fixing shall be based upon the principles that

"(a) There shall be equal pay for substantially equal work, and pay distinctions shall be maintained in keeping with work and performance distinctions; and

"(b) Federal salary rates shall be comparable with private enterprise salary rates for the same levels of work.

“Salary levels for the several Federal statutory salary systems shall be interrelated, and salary levels shall be set and henceforth adjusted in accordance with the above principles."

Our organization wholeheartedly supports the policy which the Congress has determined shall govern the fixing of salaries. We support it because it provides a definite, fair, and objective procedure for fixing salaries which, in the years to come, should make it unnecessary to have lengthy hearings on salary fixing legislation. It tends to bring order out of chaos and system out of confusion. It tends to make it more certain that the action will be taken which should be taken regarding the pay of Federal employees. We think that this policy should be adhered to and followed in the interest of the overall efficiency of Government operations. We do not think the policy should be undermined or whittled away. We are, therefore, against the provisions in H.R. 11049 which would have this effect.

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

The National Federation of Federal Employees has supported the principle of equal pay for equal work from the time the Classification Act of 1923 was under consideration by the Congress. In fact our organization was the leader in the fight to enact the Classification Act of 1923 and has consistently supported the principle of classification and the principle of equal pay for equal work down to the present time. It was a number of years after the Classification Act of 1923 was passed before the provisions of the law were extended to the field service. Against strong opposition and under many difficulties we worked for the extension of classification to the field service.

This principle of equal pay for equal work which the Congress has determined to be a public policy is an essential part of the merit system and an indispensable ingredient of a sound personnel system. Pay should be fixed according to the level and importance of the duties being performed in a given position, and whoever is performing the duties of that position satisfactorily should be given the pay that goes with the position without regard to politics or other unrelated circumstances. Geography should have nothing to do with it. A stenographer performing a certain level of work in Connecticut should receive the same pay as a stenographer performing the same level of work in the State of California.

Along with the principle of equal pay for equal work is the maintenance of pay distinctions in keeping with performance distinctions. Where the performance of one employee definitely and beyond doubt exceeds the performance of another in the same grade, there should be some distinction in pay in favor of the employee whose performance is distinctively higher than the other. Congress has said that this shall be the policy. Our organization supports the policy. Whatever difficulties may be encountered in giving effect to this principle, the principle itself should not be abandoned.

COMPARABILITY

The Congress has established comparability as a principle in fixing the pay of Federal employees and it is not believed it should decide now to depart from a principle it established less than 2 years ago.

Our organization was a pioneer in the advocacy of comparability. In our national convention in 1958 we adopted a resolution on salary policy which contained the following language:

"Resolved, That the NFFE seek legislation which will require the adjustment of Classification Act salary schedules on a national basis to reflect equal pay for equal work and to establish rates of pay that are reasonably comparable with those paid outside the Government service by progressive employers." We have consistently worked for and advocated the above policy. We were in favor of, and supported, the comparability principle a year ago when the legislation which became the Federal Salary Reform Act, Public Law 87-793, was under consideration and we now strongly support and urge adherence to the principle of comparability. The executive branch should not weaken in its adherence to this principle. We think the principle is very important and that to abandon it would lead into a wilderness of piecemeal salary legislation.

So far as we are informed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission have made a reasonable and conscientious attempt to make comparisons of pay based on positions in private industry which reasonably involve the same levels of difficulty, responsibility, and importance as the positions with which they are compared in the Federal service.

The application of the comparability principle is a reasonable matter. It involves, it is true, the exercise of some judgment, but this judgment is exercised by officials who are thoroughly familiar with the subject and the various levels of difficulty and importance in hundreds of different types of positions. To find a position which is comparable with a position in the Federal service does not mean the finding of a position in private industry the duties of which are identical with some position in the Federal service. There are many positions in the Federal service for which identical counterparts could not be found in the private sphere. However, those familiar with position classification have very little difficulty in determining what position in the private sphere is fairly comparable with a position in the Federal service. When this has been done, it is reasonable, fair, and just to say that the pay for a position in the Federal service should be on a par with the pay for a comparable position in private industry. Furthermore, the Government will be handicapped in obtaining and keeping competent employees unless the principle of comparability is observed. Recent statements by the President show he is having difficulty in keeping experienced highly qualified officials.

It seems that it would be prudent to keep in mind the facts of life in the competitive market in which the Government as an employer finds itself.

COMPARABILITY FACTS

Facts in abundance to support the importance of comparable pay in meeting competition can be found in the survey made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in the testimony of Mr. John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. Other administration officials have expressed themselves in no uncertain terms regarding the loss of valuable employees to private industry. It would seem useless to burden this committee with a further accumulation of specific instances where pay in private industry, colleges, States, and cities exceeds the pay in the Federal service, or to heap up additional statistical comparisons.

THE TIMELAG

There is a timelag in attaining comparability. The administration has indicated an awareness of this timelag and a disposition to reduce the timelag. It seems inevitable that some time must elapse between the date a survey is made and the date on which legislative action can be taken by the Congress. While we strongly favor the comparability principle, even if there is a timelag in putting it into effect, we would be happy to see the timelag reduced. However, we are disposed to be patient and would consider an abandonment of the policy on comparability as a far greater evil than the timelag could possibly be. We should be glad at any time to confer with officials of the Civil Service Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, or the committee staff, looking toward the development of procedures which will reduce the timelag.

EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL SALARIES

In our testimony in support of the salary reform legislation last year, we said there were sound reasons for thinking that salary reform should be extended to 32-884-64--18

the pay of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. We also stated that Federal officials subject to the Executive Pay Act should be given serious consideration and that action should be taken to reduce some of the existing disparity between the pay they receive and the pay for officials who have similar duties and responsibilities outside of the Federal Government. now strongly urge an increase in the executive, legislative, and judicial pay scales.

We

The pay for executives, Members of Congress, and the judiciary is far below the pay of many State officials, college presidents, foundation executives, and corporation officials, whose duties and responsibilities are no higher, if as high, as the positions held by executives, Members of Congress, and members of the judiciary in the Federal Government.

The facts submitted to the President on June 12, 1963, by the Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems clearly show that the executive, legislative, and judiciary pay scales are far too low. The Advisory Panel has pointed the way to a sensible and reasonable increase in the pay scales, taking into consideration the relationship of such pay scales to other pay schedules in the Federal service.

In all reason, the pay of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives should be substantially increased. There has been no increase in their pay since 1955. In the meantime the operations of Government have become far more complex, the legislative responsibilities are far heavier, and the time has come when Members of Congress must be in Washington almost the year round. The legislative situation today is not what it was a few years ago when Members of Congress were required to be in Washington only a short time each year. Each of them virtually must maintain two homes now-one in the State from which he comes, and the other in Washington.

There is another important reason why the pay of Members of Congress should be increased. The Congress is a very important branch of the Federal Government. Under the Constitution it is vested with the exclusive power to enact the laws under which we as a Nation live. While it is the branch of Government closest to the people, it may find its powers being usurped by other branches of the Government unless it is constantly vigilant in exercising the powers committed to it under the Constitution and expected of it by the people of the country. Just as adequate pay will enable the Government to keep its scientists, engineers, executives, and career employees, so will adequate pay tend to encourage seasoned and experienced legislators to continue to seek to remain in office. them the costs of living have gone up and expenses have increased just as they have for all other people. With due deference to the individual opinions of different Members of the Congress, we nevertheless firmly believe that the best interests of the country would be served if the pay of the Members in the legislative branch should be increased. I think it would give encouragement to that independence which has characterized the best lawmakers in the history of our country.

ABSORPTION OF COSTS OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS

For

A question of vital concern to Federal employees is how much of the cost of the salary adjustments they will have to pay in loss of jobs. Section 124 of H.R. 11049 harshly requires the departments and agencies to absorb 10 percent of the aggregate amount of pay increases provided by title I of the bill. How many employees will help pay 10 percent of cost of this legislation by loss of their jobs?

Section 124 (c) provides:

"Nothing in subsection (a) of this section shall be held or considered to require (1) the separation from the service of any individual by reduction in force or other personnel action or (2) the placing of any individual in a leavewithout-pay status."

The above language is not as assuring as it appears to be. Federal employees can lose jobs and the 10-percent reduction in jobs can be effected without attributing the cause to subsection (a) of section 124. Reorganization, abolishment of agencies, curtailment of functions and services, closing of installations, mass orders for transfers, pressure on old employees to retire, pushing employees out because of alleged disabilities, and the replacement of thousands of employees by automation (not the provisions of subsec. (a) of sec. 124) can be used to get rid of employees. This bill will be a disappointment to the employee who in expectation of a pay raise under it soon finds that he will not even have a job. Whatever may be the means by which the absorption takes place it is a certainty that fewer jobs will exist.

In our testimony on November 18, 1963, before the Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare the facts were presented as to the extent to which Federal employees are being displaced by EDPE. High in the minds of many employees in the Government service (and in private industry, too) is the question "How long will I have a job?" When the Federal employee absorbs a part of the cost of a pay increase by loss of his job, his contribution to his country is accompanied by the disquieting feeling that there may not be a job for him anywhere else. It is this feeling that prompted the delegates at our last national convention in September 1962 to adopt the following resolution:

"Whereas pay raises for Federal employees have not been fully implemented by appropriated funds; and

"Whereas such pay raises have brought about reductions in force: Therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the NFFE shall take vigorous action in securing pay raises fully implemented by appropriated funds.”

Surely the grave problem of unemployment should not now be aggravated by dumping into the ranks of the unemployed the Federal employees who are going to be called upon to absorb 10 percent of the increase in pay. With the pressures being exerted by machines and otherwise to bring about unemployment, this perilous problem of unemployment becomes more dangerous day after day. In solving the problem of pay the problem of unemployment should not be aggravated.

If we can send billions of our dollars to other nations over a long period of years, we certainly are able to appropriate the funds necessary to pay for the adjustment in salaries provided for in H.R. 11049. The obligation to take care of the employment of our people ought to receive some consideration. It is urged that H.R. 11049 be amended to strike out section 124.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO H.R. 11049

There is an area in which money can be saved and efficiency increased by an additional amendment to the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. It is in the area of wage board surveys. Surveys are now being made by different agencies in the same locality and sometimes with different results. For example, one survey will call for an increase of 5 cents per hour, while a survey made by another agency at the same location will call for an increase of 42 cents per hour. The surveys are made piecemeal, one section of the country at a time. A nationwide survey, such as that now being made for Classification Act employees by a single agency would eliminate duplication and would save money. At our last convention in Phoenix, Ariz., in September 1962, the following resolution was adopted:

"Resolved, That the National Federation of Federal Employees seek the establishment of a single national wage board pay plan for Federal employees presently subject to wage board provisions and other administrative means for setting wages of unclassified employees; and be it further

"Resolved, That such wage board pay plan be under a single administrative authority which will be responsible for establishing and defining: Wage data collection methods, administrative procedures, survey areas, and appeals procedures; and be it further

"Resolved, That such wage board pay plan contain the provision that no employee shall be paid less than the rate payable for comparable work under the provision of the Classification Act general schedule."

It is strongly urged that H.R. 11049 be amended to provide for a further amendment to the Classification Act of 1949 as amended to give effect to the abovequoted resolution.

Public Law 83-763, approved September 1, 1954, amended paragraph (7) of section 202 of the Classification Act as amended to read as follows:

"(7) employees in recognized trades or crafts, or other skilled mechanical crafts, or in unskilled, semiskilled, or skilled manual-labor occupations, and other employees including foremen and supervisors in positions having trade, craft, or laboring experience and knowledge as the paramount requirement, and employees in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing the duties of whom are to perform or to direct manual or machine operations requiring special skill or experience, or to perform or direct the counting, examining, sorting or other verification of the product of manual or machine operations: Provided, That the compensation of such employees shall be fixed and adjusted from time to time as nearly as is consistent with the public interest in accordance with prevailing rates: Provided

further, That whenever the Civil Service Commission concurs in the opinion of the employing agency that in any given area the number of such employees is so few as to make prevailing rate determinations impracticable, such employee or employees shall be subject to the provisions of this act which are applicable to positions of equivalent difficulty or responsibility." (5 USCA 1082.)

While the mechanics of the proposed amendment can be taken care of by the committee staff, it would appear that the first proviso above-quoted could be amended to incorporate a single national wage board plan in conformity with the above quoted resolution of our organization.

It may be pointed out that in all of their ramifications the wage surveys on a locality basis by different agencies are going on constantly with varying rates of increases being granted.

Not only do different agencies sometimes reach different conclusions as to the wage increase to be granted, but the determination made by the same agency may vary in areas that are not far apart geographically.

The present wage board procedure is complicated and very expensive. It is the cause of much dissatisfaction and impairment of morale. Questions are constantly arising regarding the area covered by the local surveys and the firms and establishments from which wage data are obtained. It is quite natural to expect that the employees in an area given an increase of 5 cents do not like it if they do not get the same increase as the employees in an area where an 8-cent increase is granted. There is dissatisfaction when a business establishment near the area which pays relatively high wages is not contacted for data regarding the wages it pays.

The complications and expenditures under the locality wage board survey system are going to be increased greatly by developments in connection with collective bargaining under the provisions of Executive Order No. 10988. Various groups of Federal employees are obtaining exclusive recognition under Executive Order No. 10988 and they are entering into negotiations which will have an effect upon the whole locality piecemeal, wage board survey system.

No one can fortell just how complicated or expensive the procedures may become. That they will become more complicated and expensive there can be no doubt. Already reams of paper are being used in the preparation of collectivebargaining contracts and thousands of hours of the official time of Government officials and employees are being consumed in negotiating basic and supplemental contracts. These complications and expenditures can be reduced by amending the Classification Act of 1949 as amended to provide for the establishment of a single national wage board pay plan. We strongly urge such an amendment.

KEEPING THE PROMISE MADE TO CLASSIFICATION ACT EMPLOYEES

The Salary Reform Act of 1962, Public Law 87-793, was a promise to Classification Act employees that their salaries would be adjusted in order to give effect to the policy that the salary rates would be kept comparable with private enterprise salary rates for the same levels of work. This assured them of treatment somewhat similar to that accorded wage board employees, who for a long time have had their pay adjusted according to prevailing local rates of pay. We think that this promise should be kept, and that the keeping of it will add to the security of the Nation at a time when high quality personnel are needed in dealing with the crucial problems which confront our country. There was a solemn declaration of policy in the Salary Reform Act of 1962 that "Federal salary rates shall be comparable with private enterprise salary rates for the same levels of work." Federal employees relied on that declaration. Their confidence should not be shaken by such a departure from the policy as that represented by the discrimination in H.R. 11049 against employees in the middle, and upper grades. It is strongly urged that the salary rates in H.R. 7552 for grades GS-9 through GS-15 be substituted for the rates in H.R. 11049 for these grades.

H.R. 11049 VIOLATES COMPARABILITY POLICY

The Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 provided that the comparability policy it declared would be implemented by annual surveys to determine the facts as to the rates in private industry and then recommendations to the Congress. It did not provide for implementation based on estimates. It contemplated an orderly alinement of pay according to the several grades and relief from the compression which had become increasingly harmful to the Federal service over the years.

In conformity with the plan for implementation and in accordance with the declared policy on comparability the administration supported H.R. 7552 which