2 years, to advance to rates 5, 6, and 7; and 156 weeks, or 3 years, to advance to rates 8, 9, and 10.

These adjustments in the Salary Reform Act of 1962 are acutely needed, and it is sincerely hoped that this committee will be able to give early attention to the several bills now pending which would provide correction.

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I wish to express my sincere thanks for including my statement in your schedule.

(The tables accompanying Mr. Griner's statement follow :)

TABLE 1.-Amount and percentage of increase of general schedule of H.R. 7552 and H.R. 7814 over schedule II, effective Jan. 1, 1964

TABLE 2.-Federal employees subject to Classification Act, by grade, all areas, June 1962

TABLE 3.-Percentage of increase 1961-63 of salaries of selected office clerical positions in industry in 32 metropolitan areas surveyed annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics1

1 Cumulated percentage of average increase in area indicated in BLS Occupational Wage Surveys of Office Clerical Positions in Winter 1961-62, and Winter 1962-63.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

TABLE 4.-Average annual1 earnings of 4 clerical positions in manufacturing industry in 17 metropolitan areas, comparable to grades GS-3 and GS-4

TABLE 5.-Salary of Federal classified clerical positions and of comparable positions in the United States Steel Corp.

Source: Agreement between United States Steel Corp. and United Steelworkers of America, effective Apr. 6, 1962.

TABLE 6.-Rates of pay1 for men laborers or minimum plant wage rates, selected situations, January and July 1963

TABLE 7.-Army Air Force wage board and classified hourly pay rates, annual and cumulative, for corresponding grade levels, 1952–62, inclusive

1 Based on medians of second-step rates for grade W-7 of regular wage board nonsupervisory schedules as of June 30 of each year.

2 Fourth step-rate of GS-4.

3 Average increases for all grades were 7.6 percent in 1955; 10 percent in 1958; 7.6 percent in 1960; and 5.5 percent in 1962.

Source: Army-Air Force wage board and Civil Service Commission.

TABLE 8.-Estimated percentage increase in hourly rates, selected major collective bargaining situations, August 1953 to August 1963 1

1 Includes general increases in rates, cost-of-living adjustments, and estimated effects of adjustments of geographic and other wage inequities; excludes effects on incentive earnings resulting from changes in outout, premium overtime pay, shift differentials, and changes in skill level, as well as other fringe benefits. 2 Percentage increases estimated by dividing cents-per-hour increases by estimated straight-time average hourly earnings for August 1953 in the industry in which the company is classified.

3 Increases negotiated with the United Steelworkers of America.

Increases negotiated at southern California plants with the International Association of Machinists. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. POOL. Mr. Griner, this is not exactly on the point, but it has been bothering me a little bit and I want to ask this question: There was an announcement in the paper the other day that Government employees and postal employees would join with COPE group of AFL-CIO in endorsing and supporting candidates for next year's election. In my opinion, that would hurt the chances of passage of this pay raise bill. Do you have a comment on that?

Mr. GRINER. We have not as of this date joined in supporting any policy.

Mr. POOL. Is it possible for you to endorse a candidate under the Hatch Act as a group?

Mr. GRINER. As a union we could. As an individual employee we cannot.

Mr. POOL. Do you think that would be a good idea for Government employees to endorse candidates?

Mr. GRINER. No, sir.

Mr. POOL. As a group or individually?

Mr. GRINER. We have to deal with all Congressmen and all Senators. I certainly would hesitate to endorse any candidate.

Mr. POOL. You think probably your group would not go for the announcement that I saw in the paper?

Mr. GRINER. Our present thinking is we probably would not.

Mr. POOL. I think the announcement came from the COPE group and not from one of your unions in the Government. I wanted that in the record.

Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Olsen.

Mr. OLSEN. I want to commend Mr. Griner on a comprehensive statement. Particularly I am happy that you point out the shortcomings of previous pay acts. I think these matters should be brought to the attention of this committee so that we will treat the present proposals with greater care. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRINER. I would like to thank you, Congressman, and I would like to say that in this latter part of my statement I had a comment,

only a comment, on the acceptable level of competence, which I hope this committee will have time to hold hearings on because that is a discriminatory piece of legislation if I have ever seen one. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other questions, the next witness is Mr. John G. Brady, chairman, Committee on Legislation, National Association of Internal Revenue Employees. He is accompanied by Mr. George Bursach, executive secretary-treasurer, and Mr. John L. Barnes, Sr., chairman, Committee on Civil Service.

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. BRADY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES; ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE BURSACH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER; AND JOHN L. BARNES, SR., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am especially pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you, because all of us here today are well aware of sections 502 through 504 of title I of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 which spells out in detail the contractual agreement the Congress made with Federal careerists.

Since Congress endorsed the comparability feature by its action last year, we believe that this 88th Congress will pass legislation so that Federal salaries will be brought into line and kept in line with general national salary levels.

COST OF LIVING-AUGUST 1963

After a year of stable living costs, wage earners are now being hit by a boost in the cost of living. Dun & Bradstreet's wholesale food price index by midsummer had reached its highest level since last December. This means you are going to pay more for food in the future, and also keep in mind, when pay raises are proposed, immediately thereafter the utilities companies submit requests for increases in serving transportation, gas, electricity, telephone, and housing.

STUDY OF FEDERAL PAY

Study of Federal pay conditions explicitly indicate that the reason Government employees' salaries lag so far behind wages in private industry, is that increases in Federal pay come too infrequently. Pay increases in private industry are usually increased on an annual basis, and are often written into union contracts. These same increases are therefore accomplished automatically and without much, if any, publicity. Studies show that the average wage increase in private industry was about 3 percent last year.

On the other hand, Federal pay increases come far too infrequently. Usually they are only achieved after a long period of strenuous campaigning and by using the maximum of publicity. This arrangement is inefficient, most expensive, uncertain and time consuming. By the time the President signs a new pay bill into law, the level of Federal wages has already fallen behind wages in outside industry.