task force report on personnel management, appendix A, page 49-if the committee wishes to incorporate it in the hearings.

Three reasons make this comparison wrong: First, requirements of Government jobs in many cases differ widely from private jobs; for example, a CAF-2 or 3-approximate equivalent to a general stenographer must take dictation at a minimum of 80 words per minute; a private employer has no such rigid requirement. As another example, my own secretary-file clerk, CAF-4, must index and cross-file our legal opinions according to legal points covered in the opinion; a lawyer in general practice has this work done for him by legal texts and compilations which publish our opinions, and his file clerk need only file material according to client or case. Second, white-collar workers in private industry have notoriously been the chief victims. of inflation. They are unorganized; furthermore, they seem to attach some sort of prestige value to their jobs which makes them willing to suffer financial hardship. As the President well said:

While we are fighting further inflation we should recognize that severe hardship has already been imposed on those whose incomes have lagged far behind the increase in the cost of living. Whatever is feasible to alleviate this hardship should be accomplished without delay.

(Economic Report, January 1949, p. 14.) That this group has been an unhappy victim of inflation is hardly a reason for imposing the same difficulties on Federal workers. Third, it seems that in fact, Federal reward is not comparable to that in private industry. Hoover Commission task report, page 7, showed that Government salary was regarded as worse than that in private industry by six out of seven college seniors. (Six out of nine other features of job also rated worse in Government.) The turn-over is terrific (ibid., pp. 7-8), greatly disproportionate (9 out of 10 new appointments are for replacement) and wasteful. Further, there exists a chronic and acute shortage of chemists, physicists, engineers, mechanical draftsmen, beginning librarians, card-punch operators, telephone operators, bookkeeping-machine operators, and, above all, stenographers. Obviously, Federal pay is not comparable to that in private industry, or these shortages would not continue. S. 1762 recognizes this by permitting hiring at middle of grade if necessary to recruit workers (sec. 803).

Mr. Friedman's testimony Wednesday concerning comparative pay scales worked out by NME sustains this view rather than the opposite. Despite the PX policy of "heads we win, tails the employee loses" (paying the classification salary or going rate, whichever is lower), both the PX and private industry seem to get the stenographers and business-machine operators, while classified jobs in these groups go begging. This is hardly an indication classification pay is better.

S. 1518 does not contain a salary grade for heads of agencies and important bureaus, which is established by S. 1762 at $16,000. GWU considers this a highly selective problem, to be dealt with ad hoc rather than by general union policy. However, we support the recommendation of this grade. In fact, the pay schedule of S. 1518 which we endorse is keyed at the top to a $15,000-$16,000 salary for these administrators, and the salary of the next lower grade (gráde 11 in S. 1518) is accordingly set at a maximum of $13,700.

S. 1518 establishes a vastly improved pay scale, providing for orderly progression in pay all along the line in accordance with difficulty and responsibility of the work. Mr. Baruch and Mr.

Winslow, for the Administration, urged this kind of pay scale, and did not limit their recommendations to S. 1762. Mr. Winslow said the Administration does not oppose such revision of pay rates-and there can be no reason for anyone else to oppose it. S. 1518 provides a much more comprehensive simplifying of the numerous grades than S. 1762, which is unduly complicated because it grants no appreciable pay raises. Besides these two major achievements, S. 1518 has other advantages. It provides a minimum living wage, realistic pay at middle and top grades, and fair pay raises at the lower levels. It also eliminates overlapping of pay between grades, thereby preventing friction and morale problems which exist where subordinates are paid more than their supervisors. Within-grade raises are all made every 52 weeks under S. 1518, thus eliminating loss to employees as a result of lag in pay periods. I believe that S. 1176 does not do this except on an annual basis, which means the employee's average chance is losing a week's pay, since the pay period is 2 weeks, and the annual period takes effect only in the next pay period.

Now, a sufficient number of such raises is provided to secure permanency among employees. They are slightly increased in amount and progress in orderly fashion to the next grade.

Details of the pay schedule are set out in appendix I. No increases are provided for longevity at the top of a grade, but GWU approves this principle of S. 1762 and urges that it be incorporated in S. 1518. GWU respectfully requests that the subcommittee recommend the pay schedule and other provisions of S. 1518. Federal workers need substantial raises, not substandard pay.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is one small correction I would like to make on the first page of appendix I. The second grade from the top, in grade 2-that is, in the second highest salary, $2,950-provides for a pay raise of only $249. That is a mechanical mistake we made in working this thing out, and this man should probably be up in the next step, which would give a raise of $349, still below the average for that grade, but would alleviate some inequity.

That was the principle in equity we could not get over in amalgamating those grades, and that man is below the general average. Senator LONG. May I ask you a question about appendix No. 1? Mr. LEET. Surely.

Senator LONG. You have here GWU pay rates. Are they the rates you propose?

Mr. LEET. The rates we propose in the bill; yes, sir.

Senator LONG. Compared to them are the rates in the next column, and I am confused about that. The present pay rates you have, for example, for grade 1 would be $1,410, and you propose $670 more.

Mr. LEET. The man would go into grade 1 now. Grade 1 includes several of these groups of employees in various levels of existing grade, but the man who gets $1,410, say a CPC 1, would under our bill be placed in grade 1 and get $2,080.

Senator LONG. How many people are there in that classification? Mr. LEET. That is shown over in the next to last column.

Senator LONG. 108.

Mr. LEET. 108, a very small number.

Senator LONG. Those are very small groups?

91564-49- -14

Mr. LEET. Yes. That grade 1 is, as someone said Monday or Wednesday, not adult employees, generally; they are beginners and people who are going to night school or to school part time-something of that sort. We regard this rate as substandard now, and we think they should get all ours plus the in-grade raises.

Does that clear up what the table does?

Senator LONG. Yes; I believe that does clear it up.

Mr. LEET. The percentages and in-grade raises are also covered in the table, and the cost of each step in the proposed bill is covered too. Senator LONG. Now, if this is the bill I have in mind, there is no overlapping in this particular schedule.

Mr. LEET. No overlapping; no, sir.

The closest thing is where at the top of one grade you may have the same salary as the bottom of another grade. That happens sometimes, as you may see from the table; but there is absolutely no overlapping.

Here, Mr. Chairman, are the appendixes I, II, and III which go at the end of my statement.

(The appendixes referred to are as follows:)