a further gain by engineers in industry, thereby making the Federal service even less attractive to the highly trained and skilled individ uals which it must have. Because of this we believe it imperative that section 151 be removed and that engineers be allowed to retain their present above-minimum grade ranges. To do otherwise would be tantamount to saying that comparability is desirable for all Federal employees except those in the greatest demand. We do not believe that such a philosophy could be seriously argued. A second matter which we would like to briefly comment upon, Mr. Chairman, is one involving certain inequities resulting in conversion from the old salary schedule to the one which became effective last October under the Federal Salary Reform Act. I am sure the chairman and members of this committee are aware of this situation, which has been the subject of a number of bills introduced this year, some by members of this committee. The situation to which I refer resulted from the fact that prior to passage of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962, employees promoted from one classified grade to another were guaranteed a minimum salary increase equivalent to one-step increase of the grade from which they were promoted. Under the new law this guaranteed salary increase was raised to two-step increases, with the result that many engineers and other higher-grade employees who earned grade promotions shortly before the effective date of the act found that their total salary was less than that of others similarly situated who had not earned grade promotions until after the act was passed. In some extreme cases, these individuals found that they would actually be better off financially had they not been promoted at all. The bills which have been introduced to correct this situation would provide, in effect, that employees involved be allowed to postpone their grade promotions until after the effective date of the Salary Reform Act, thus assuring them of at least a two-step raise, rather than the one-step raise which many received. We strongly urge, Mr. Chairman, that corrective legislation of this type be given favorable consideration by this committee, either as a separate measure or as part of the pay bill, as deemed appropriate. While we do not believe the cost of such corrective action would be significant to the Government, we do feel that it would have a substantial, positive, affect upon the morale of the individuals involved, and would demonstrate the desire of Congress to provide equitable salary treatment for all Federal employees. This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I will, of course, be happy to answer any questions which you or other members of the committee may have on our comments, or to provide any other information which may be desired. Thank you for your consideration of our views. 1 In grades GS-5 and GS-7, engineer rates presently start at the equivalent of step 7 2 Federal rates needed to match industry. Derived from "National Survey of Pro- 3 The assumption is made that in implementing section 151 the Civil Service Commission would adjust salaries of individuals currently receiving above-minimum rates to the nearest step in the proposed salary schedule which would equal or exceed their 4 Parentheses indicate Federal salaries in excess of winter 1961-62 private industry With section 151 removed, engineer rates would begin at same above-minimum step ¡evels as at present. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Any questions? We appreciate your testimony, Mr. Robbins. This concludes the list of witnesses who were scheduled to appear this morning. The next meeting of the committee will be next Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. The committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, September 17, 1963.) 23-242-63-pt. 1-14 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY ACT OF 1963 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in the committee room, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Tom Murray (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The hearings will be resumed on the pay legislation now pending before the committee. The first witness this morning is Mr. John Griner, president, American Federation of Government Employees. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. GRINER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPANIED BY W. J. VOSS, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH; AND GEORGE E. MEAGHER, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION Mr. GRINER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John F. Griner. I am national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. To my left is Mr. W. J. Voss, my director of research; to my right is Mr. George Meagher, who is director of legislation. As the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, I am appearing before you today to present our views in support of an increase of the salaries of Federal Government employees which are determined by congressional action. I represent 125,000 employees of the Federal and District of Columbia Governments, members of our federation, who are serving not only in the Washington metropolitan area but also throughout the 50 States, in Guam, Okinawa, Iceland, the Azores, and in several countries of Europe in which U.S. Government employees are assigned. So far as the scope of the bills before this committee is concerned, we are interested in many of their provisions. The majority of our members are employed in positions paid according to the Classification Act. We also have members subject to the field service schedule of the Post Office Department and a group in the Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration. The American Federation of Government Employees desires to register its approval in principle of all the bills which have been sponsored by the members of this committee and their colleagues in the House as evidence of their sympathetic attitude toward the needs 207 |