Mr. STEWARD. I think unquestionably there should be some consideration for his capabilities.

Senator LONG. Do you find in the present act any guaranty of such recognition of an employee or supervisor who has been able to actually reduce costs?

Mr. STEWARD. Senator, I do not believe that any language that could be drafted by Congress would guarantee good administration. Senator LONG. Well, do you think the language could be drawn that would strongly encourage good administration, let us say, more strongly than at the present time?

Mr. STEWARD. Yes, sir; it could furnish some guidelines that could be utilized by conscientious and capable administrators, but of course the Congress can't get into the detail of administration because that is beyond its possibility. I do believe, as I have previously stated, that the development of standards of performance of employees, the improvement of what has always been the weakest link in the whole Federal personnel structure-that is, supervision and administration so as to develop more teamwork from top to bottom-is slow and unspectacular but nevertheless the successful way of getting expenditures for personnel service more nearly geared to the necessities of any particular departments or agencies.

Senator LONG. It just seems to me that generally in private industry any supervisor or man in charge of any section who is able to reduce the cost of doing that particular job, and he can always do the job a little bit cheaper than somebody else could do it and with a little bit less help, winds up as the head of the corporation and business manager, or something of that sort. But in Government we have nothing whatsoever to insure any recognition to a man who does the same thing.

Mr. STEWARD. However, Senator, we must not let ourselves go too far along that road, because speed-up practices and uncompensated overtime and other devices might give the head of an agency an opportunity to strut before a congressional committee and show how he had done it, but if you get the other side of the picture

Senator LONG. I doubt if we are in any immediate danger of speedup practices.

Mr. STEWARD. Yes, sir; we have had such things in government. We have had such things where employees were told, "You will be expected to volunteer to work overtime," compulsory volunteering as it were.

Senator LONG. I don't believe that the speed-up practice is the general rule in private industry, and yet private industry has worked on the idea of efficiency from the very beginning.

Mr. STEWARD. I think it can be said at the present time there is always another thing that acts as a check on that. We are hearing about discussions in Detroit over the allegation that Mr. Ford in the River Rouge establishment required speed-up. That is an issue that has not yet been determined, but there are close to 100,000 workers out on strike over that issue, as to whether an attempt was made to speed them up.

That is a very definite gage which cannot be applied to the Federal service for obvious reasons because of the relation of the employees to their employer that is altogether different.

Senator LONG. I agree with you that we should see to it that there is no work condition overburdensome on the employees that they have

to work excessive hours or to do any back-breaking toil that you wouldn't reasonably expect of the ordinary employee doing a good day's work.

Mr. STEWARD. That is why we emphasize the necessity of establishing on a much broader scale the development of work standards, what is a fair day's work, and let's meet it, and that isn't done to the extent that it should be.

I am given to understand that some very gratifying progress is being made in the Department of Defense and I hope that before the hearings are concluded that you will ask for some of that information which I think will be very illuminating for the committee.

Here is another point that isn't touched upon in this proposal to amend the Classification Act. At present some 500,000 employees recently referred to as "blue-collar employees" have their compensation fixed by some form of wage board procedure, and their compensation bears some relation to comparable salaries paid in a given area. Mr. Friedman referred this morning to the fact that they were getting closer together on those matters in the Department of Defense. In the Department of Defense there may be 85 percent of those socalled wage board employees but they nevertheless are dotted all through other departments and agencies and with the exception of the Navy Department where there is some statutory base all the other utilization of wage board procedures have been established by administrative action. However well it has been designed, or however well it is operated, we do not believe that there is sufficient foundation. There should be set forth in law at least some basic recognition, there should be some sketching in as to coordination of operations of various types of wage boards, such things as the area of competition, the collection of wage data, and so on, things that would in no way interfere with the operation of any department or agency but would indicate general governmental policy.

I would urge the committee to ask Mr. Baruch to suggest language that would bring about such a result.

To emphasize what would happen in the absence of any legislative language, it is proposed in S. 1762 to do away with one of the existing classification services, the so-called clerical-mechanical service, and to provide it is mentioned over here in the back-that hereafter the employees in the clerical-mechanical service would have their pay fixed by wage boards. That would mean, within the Treasury Department. A clerical-mechanical service as its name indicates, is a hybrid service, it is operative in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, whose work, conditions of employment, and the material with which they work is unique. They are working with penalty paper. They are engaged in the assisting in the making of bonds, of paper money, and stamps.

Now here it is proposed that they be lifted bodily and to have their compensation fixed by a wage board. We submit that there is no fair basis of comparability between the employees in the clerical-mechanical service and any employees in outside business or industry. There are a handful in the American Bank Note Co., or something like that, but out of all proportion. You might as well compare General Motors with the first repair garage you come to.

Therefore, while it is proposed that they should have their compensation fixed by wage boards, it is perfectly evident to us that valid comparable data would not be obtained and, therefore, under

the guise of a wage board, some official in the Treasury Department arbitararily would fix those rates. We do not like to see wage fixing on the basis of temperament of an individual because sometimes it redounds to the benefit of employees if a very liberal individual is on the job, and overnight he may be succeeded by a man whose views are diametrically opposite, and in any event it is arbitrary and we do not believe there should be an arbitrary basis.

Therefore, we are extremely anxious first, that some congressional recognition in the proposed law before this committee be given to wage policy in respect to wage board employees; secondly, that the clerical-mechanical service be integrated into the general schedule which is a perfectly simple classification matter, because, in our judgment the clerical-mechanical service does not fit in the wage board procedure.

Now, to get back for just 1 minute to the proposal to amend the Classification Act. Generally speaking, we consider this a good formula. It is a skeleton, however, and there is no meat on the bones. That is for the committee to do. We believe that there can be inserted in an orderly fashion, with the exception of the top grades where the ceiling has been removed so that whatever proposed increase would be made by the committee. This could taper off and reach the vanishing point before it got to the top.

The other day some testimony was offered about the pay of employees in private business and industry in certain categories being lower than those in Federal service. Stenographers were mentioned. I merely want to match a fact against a theory. Notwithstanding statements that have been offered as to the Federal Government paying more for stenographers than private industry, there is a constant dearth of competent stenographers in the Federal service and an inability to meet requirements for that very useful occupation. So that there are times when confronted with the facts of the case, we must judge them and give them more weight than we do to some statistical data of unproven validity.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this should be taken into consideration, among other things, in adding money under the formula, as outlined in bill S. 1762, the fact that a year ago when the 1948 Pay Act was passed, there was a differential running against the Classification Act employees to the extent of $120. I think that should be given consideration. That was discussed all the way through and in Congress. I think that should be given very serious consideration by the committee in developing some pay recognition. I feel that to add less than $300,000,000 a year for general distribution into the formula as presented in S. 1762 would be a complete failure to recognize existing conditions, needs, necessities, and even that amount would do scant justice for those affected by the proposed legislation.

Senator LONG. I am going to have to adjourn this committee meeting to attend a Senate session.

I will attempt to gain permission to have this committee meet in this room at 2 p. m. this afternoon, and I will be glad to hear any further testimony.

Do you think the $300,000,000 necessary to give these employees an additional raise can be absorbed out of current operating budgets?

Mr. STEWARD. Not without the serious curtailment, or in some instances the abolition of functions set forth by congressional enact

ment.

Senator LONG. Would it be your opinion that over a period of time by working out certain standards that we might be able to hold the number of personnel down to the point where it might absorb these increases?

Mr. STEWARD. I certainly do. That has never yet had a fair trial in the Federal service.

Senator LONG. For the first time I think it should be helpful.

Mr. STEWARD. Congress is constantly grappling with the belief that somewhere there are overstaffed agencies, which is a fact, but they can't quite come to grips with it because they don't have measurements, they don't have a way of adequately determining. So frequently in desperation they resort to these meat-ax methods and cut them all off 5 percent or whatever it may be. That is ineffective. Senator LONG. Thank you very much.

I would like to incorporate into the record a statement submitted by Congressman George M. Rhodes; and a statement submitted by George E. Ernenwein on behalf of the New York Federation of Post Office Clerks.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT TO SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE RELATIVE TO POSTAL AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASES BY CONGRESSMAN GEORGE M. RHODES, THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appear today in support of legislation to provide much needed salary increases for Federal employees and employees of the field service of the Post Office Department.

As a member of the House of Representatives, I have introduced H. R. 2522 which would provide salary increases of $650 per annum for these employees. As one who during the greater part of his career worked for wages, I know just how difficult it is for these loyal, faithful, and efficient employees to make ends meet on present salaries. While there have been salary increases in other years, such increases have, in my opinion, always been too little and too late. Our own Bureau of Labor Statistics supplies us with abundant testimony as to the need for further salary increases at this time. Frankly, I am not too impressed with the thought that a balanced budget is desirable when such balancing is done at the expense of postal and Federal employees. It is my opinion that the circumstances require an increase of not less than $650 per annum, particularly for the employees in the lower and middle brackets. While I am in agreement that our Federal Government should reward those in policy-making positions, I am a lot less impressed with their need for adjustments than I am with the needs of those employees whose total salary is spent in supporting themselves and their families. I am particularly interested in the elimination of the four lower salary grades in the postal service since it has been my observation that the present entrance grades are far too low to permit an employee to maintain a family with any degree of comfort and decency. Section 3 of the bill S. 1772 would correct this situation by providing that each employee in the postal field service whose original appointment to a regular position was to a grade lower than grade 5 and who has not progressed to grade 5 shall as of July 1, 1949, be placed in grade 5 and that all persons whose original appointment is made after June 30, 1949, shall be placed in grade 5. This section is similar to corresponding sections of H. R. 4395 by Congressman Lyle of Texas, and H. R. 4495 by Congressman Miller of California, which I shall support when those bills are before the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service of which I am a member.

I would suggest that section 4 of the bill S. 1772 be amended by incorporating the provisions of S. 558 which was introduced jointly by Chairman Johnston of your committee, together with Senators Baldwin, Langer, and O'Conor. I assure you that I shall be glad to lend every possible assistance to such legislation when it is considered on the other side of the Capitol.

I hope that this committee will take prompt and favorable action along the lines I have indicated.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the privilege of appearing before you on behalf of the postal and Federal employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

BRIEF PRESENTED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, BY THE NEW YORK STATE FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS

Gentlemen, in recent years salaries of postal employees did not advance in proportion to the rise in living costs. When the cost of living increases, employees such as these, with fixed incomes suffer a reduction in their purchasing power, and a lowering of their living standards.

During the eightieth session of Congress we were advised that an increase of over $1,100 was needed to bring postal employees' purchasing power to the 1939 level. In order to at least partially assist them, a $450 annual increase was granted during the closing days of that session. (Public Law 900, which became effective July 1, 1948.)

Actually this did not accomplish the desired results for while there has been a slight decrease in the over-all costs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a deficiency still exists, and it is estimated that approximately $650 would be needed to bring these employees up to their former living standard. Considerable hardship and inconvenience has been encountered by them due to the afore-mentioned reduction in their purchasing power.

We therefore feel justified in our request for an additional salary adjustment for all postal employees at this time. We seek a basic salary increase compatible with the increase in living costs so as to restore them to their 1939 level.

We heartily endorse S. 558, introduced by Senators Johnston, O'Conor, Baldwin, and Langer. If enacted this bill would grant postal employees a $650 annual increase in salary and do much to correct conditions for these workers, and restore their purchasing power.

We also favor the provisions of S. 1772, which was presented by Senators Langer, Humphrey, McKeller, Ecton, Hendrickson, Frear and Baldwin, including:

Credit for past service in determining salary grades, with an amendment to include employees in second class offices.

The principal of longevity awards is based on the theory of rewarding long and faithful service. This principal is defeated or greatly minimized if no consideration is given for past meritorious service. We therefore appeal for this consideration and urge early and favorable action upon this legislation.

Twenty-six days annual and 15 days sick leave is another important item in our legislative program. All other Federal employees are granted these benefits and we urgently request similar consideration for post office employees, along this line.

Thanking you in advance for any action which may be taken to assist us in these matters, with best wishes, we remain.

Very truly yours,

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p. m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator LONG. Mr. Steward, I would like to ask you one last question.