12:30, that I am willing to come back at 2 and continue these this afternoon so that we don't get any further behind, if we can avoid that.

I have called my office to rearrange two meetings that I had, because I can adjust those to some other time.

Senator FONG. I would have to leave at about 3.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have to leave, also. I just want to resume this rather than hold it over to the next day, if that is agreeable.

Senator FONG. That is agreeable.

The CHAIRMAN. We are up against the blade right now, physically time wise, to get this succession of hearings in, and the Senator is involved in two or three other committees where this likewise becomes a bind.

Senator FONG. That is fine.

Mr. HAMPTON. That would be fine, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you very much for your patience and your understanding of our qualms or our misgivings or our uncertainties that we have here.

You have always been very helpful to us. Even when we have disagreed, you have been tolerant of our position.

Mr. HAMPTON. The committee has been very tolerant, also, and I think it indicates a sincere desire to address these very sensitive problems head on.

Senator FONG. I have heard from employees' leaders, and they feel you have been very fair in all of this salary matter, and that you have been very, very helpful and have tried to work with the problem, and I want to thank you for coming.

Mr. HAMPTON. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is John A. McCart, the operations director of the Government Employees Council.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COUNCIL

Mr. MCCART. Since the record on the pending legislation is replete for 1970 and thus far in 1971, I don't think it is necessary or appropriate for me to proceed to read my prepared statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we agree that your prepared testimony will appear intact as though delivered eloquently, and then you can highlight those relevant sections that you believe should be underscored, and we will proceed from there?

Mr. MCCART. Mr. Chairman, if you will agree to place in parentheses the phrase that you used, "delivered eloquently," I will be happy to follow your suggestion.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, we want to express our appreciation to you and your colleagues, not only for holding the hearings, but for having introduced the bills giving rise to the subject under discussion. We appear today in support of 1231 and related bills.

I am going to deal with two or three topics that have been clarified previously, but I am going to try to do it in such a fashion as not to belabor the point, and perhaps shed some new light.

First with respect to the number of steps in the wage board raise. As you know, some 90 percent of the Federal wage board workers have now attained the maximum steps in these grades. This means, of course, that they can

The CHAIRMAN. That figure is 90 percent?

Mr. MCCART. It is more than 90 percent. This means they cannot progress beyond that point with the exception of general pay increases. You know already the situation with the postal and classified workers. You are also aware of the change of rates that the step system provides, at present 8 percent for wage board employees, 30 percent for classified workers, and 37 percent for postal employees under the National agreement that was negotiated last year.

What all of this means is that the career progress of wage board workers is seriously impeded. If you have an individual who has devoted 30 years of his working life in a manual trade or occupation and has reached the maximum step of his wage cycle in the first 2 years of those 30 years, you can realize what a frustrating experience it is for him to wait for the 28 years without being able to advance within his grade.

Now to the question of night differentials. As you know, 1231 and similar bills proposed a 712-percent differential for the 4 to 12 shift, and 10 percent differential for the 12 to 8 shift.

There is justifying evidence to substantiate this kind of differential on a national basis.

In the first place this kind of system is applicable now to classified and postal workers. A growing number of firms in private industry are following this practice. For example, American Motors, American Tobacco, General Motors, McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft, and Western Union. And the number of companies adopting a national wage differential plan is increasing annually.

In addition, there is a problem within the Coordinated Federal Wage System today, and that is, in some areas it is very difficult for the data collectors to acquire night differential information simply because the private firms do not work night shifts. So sometimes it is quite difficult to compile the night differential data that is necessary to fix an appropriate rate of pay for this kind of work in Federal activities.

If Congress adopts the proposal providing percentage differentials that will apply throughout the Federal establishment wage board system, it will eliminate the necessity for the collection of these data at the local level, and there should be some savings with respect to administration if that is done.

As to the cost of living adjustments that have been mentioned earlier in these hearings for Federal blue-collar employees, this feature, of course, does not appear in any of the pending bills. We certainly support the adoption of this concept by this committee.

You will recall that you have received testimony, both last year and this year, to the effect of the 6-5 voting arrangements that occurs so often in the National Wage Policy Committee against the interest of the labor point of view.

There was a very rare departure from that practice in late 1970, when the Wage Policy Committee, by a 6-5 margin, voted to recom

mend that cost-of-living increases be given as a minimum, to wage board employees.

This idea was rejected by the Civil Service Commission, so it is necessary for us to ask Congress if they will approve the concept of the cost-of-living factor as a minimum increase for wage board employees.

About negotiated agreements, as you know there are some agencies in the Federal service where it has been traditional for wages to be negotiated under collective bargaining arrangements. Some of the bills before you speak to this point.

But we believe that there should be a very positive understanding about the matter. We suggest that the committee, in approving a wage board bill, not only authorize the existence of these agreements and the renewal of these agreements, but that these employees be exempted from the general system so that the collective-bargaining situation is retained.

On nonappropriated fund employees, Mr. Chairman, you have heard so much evidence on that score today. The simple fact is that the wages of the workers in the nonappropriated fund facilities are fixed administratively. There is little or no employee or union participation. The only basic guideline that the nonappropriated fund facilities have is they must conform to the National or State minimum wage applicable to other workers.

With all of the deficiencies we find in the Coordinated Federal Wage System, at least there is an element of labor participation which is not present in the nonappropriated fund activities.

So it is important, if these workers are going to receive justicethese 70,000-odd workers-that there be some kind of planned system for arriving at their rates of pay and thereby adequate employee participation in that system.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the administration's proposal which appears in S. 1636, and particularly in relation to the justification provided by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission a few moments ago.

If you will permit me, I would simply like to read into the record two paragraphs from the prepared statement, and hopefully this will put that bill in precise perspective.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recite the deficiencies in that bill.

Employees of nonappropriated fund activities are not included in the administration's proposal. It recommends extending coverage to wage systems of independent agencies and Government corporations, where collective bargaining on rates of pay has been traditional.

The bill empowers the Civil Service Commission to delegate to agencies authority to establish rates and to determine the policy of union involvement in the plan. It eliminates employee participation in collecting wage data from private firms by transferring this function to the Bureau of Labor Statistics alone.

S. 1636 makes no provision for additional steps in wage grades or for statutory percentage differentials for night work. The composition of the National Wage Policy Committee-renamed the Federal Wage System Advisory Council in this bill-would remain precisely as it is today.

The bill would deprive labor members of the Advisory Council of the opportunity they now possess to vote on issues presented to them. There is no method of assuring wage board workers that they will be able to keep abreast of rising trends in the cost of living as a minimum. In summary, the administration proposal contains no improvement over present practices, remedies none of the existing deficiencies, and denies employees and their unions their current right to take part in gathering private industry wage information, and exercising a franchise on the Advisory Council.

We urge strongly that the committee ignore these legislative proposals as totally inadequate.

Mr. Chairman, the problem confronting this committee with respect to these two types of legislation is whether the Civil Service Commission is going to be able to operate the Coordinated Federal Wage System without guidelines or whether the Congress is going to advise the Civil Service Commission that it can proceed with the system, but that certain minimum standards shall be observed.

We hope that the committee will renew the action it took last year with respect to this legislation, and that the President will see the need for bringing into the modern era the present statute that is more than a century old.

The Government Employees Council appreciates the opportunity of discussing our views with you on the pending bills, and we urge that prompt action be taken to approve this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank you, John, for your help here. Do you have any questions, Senator?

Senator FONG. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. MCCART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

(Prepared statement of John A. McCart follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WAGE BOARD PAY SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on June 18, 1970, the 34 AFLCIO unions associated with the Council acquainted you with the position of these organizations on pending bills to improve the administration of the Federal wage program. At that time, we informed the Committee of our support for legislation in this field. The unions in question represent in excess of 1 million Federal employes.

The Council is indebted to the members of this Committee and of the Senate and House, who extended their support to final Congressional approval of H.R. 17809. GEC unions were willing to accept that bill as the broad legal basis for changes we had sought since 1967, even though it did not meet all of our objectives. This hope was dashed with President Nixon's veto of H.R. 17809 on January 2, 1971.

Thus, it becomes necessary to renew our plea to Congress to act again on revisions of the wage board plan.

The record of the 91st Congress is replete with evidence of the justification for legislation to undergird the Coordinated Federal Wage System. There is little need to repeat the reasons for reconstituting the National Wage Policy Committee, extending coverage to employes of nonappropriated fund facilities, enlarging the present number of steps in wage grades, and "saving" the pay of downgraded employes. The fact that Congress responded positively on these matters by approving H.R. 17809 proves the point.

The magnitude of the problems involved can be realized from the fact that there are approximately 675,000 regular wage board workers and 70,000 employes of nonappropriated fund activities in the Defense Department and Veterans'

Administration Canteen Service, who are experiencing severe inequities in the establishment of their wage rates.

The Council is grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Senators Burdick, Moss, and Stevens, distinguished members of the Committee, for sponsoring bills on this subject. Senators Gravel, Harris, Metcalf, and Spong have introduced wage board measures also. Our deep appreciation is extended to these legislators as well.

All of these measures bear some resemblance. They increase the number of wage steps, include nonappropriated fund workers in the system, create an impartial Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, and retain the pay of employes whose jobs are reclassified downward.

The principal differences relate to the number of steps to be included in the various wage grades and establishment of statutory differentials for work on night shifts.

STEPS IN GRADE

Members of the Committee are aware that more than 90% of wage board employes have attained the maximum progression in their grades-Step 3. They achieve the highest rate after one and a half years of satisfactory work in the lower steps. Contrast this practice with the experience of Federal classified employes, who may advance through 10 steps over a period of seventeen and one half years. Postal workers, on the other hand, can progress through 12 steps in 8 years under a national agreement negotiated last year.

Put another way, the pay range for a career worker is 8% for wage board employes, 30% for classified workers, and 37% for those in the Post Office Department.

We submit that attainment of maximum progression in 18 months, with little possibility of exceeding the 8% pay range for three steps stifles career development for Federal workers in manual occupations who devote a working lifetime to Federal Service.

Thus, our contention that the 10 step system now applicable to classified employes be utilized for wage board workers is valid.

NIGHT DIFFERENTIALS

In the bills introduced by Senator Moss and others, shift differentials for night work would be computed at 72% for the 4 to 12 shift and 10% for the 12 to 8 shift.

This proposal can be substantiated on several grounds.

Compensation for night work for Federal classified and postal workers is fixed on a national scale.

In large private industries, it is not uncommon to find an identical percentage differential applicable to all plants. American Motors, American Tobacco, General Motors, McDonnell Douglas Aircraft, and Western Union are examples.

Collection by Coordinated Federal Wage System representatives of useful data on night differentials from private firms in a given locality is sometimes difficult. The principal reason is that companies may not have night shift operations for the occupations comparable to Federal wage board jobs.

Establishment of common differentials for all Federal facilities employing wage board personnel will simplify administration. No longer will it be necessary for local installations to gather such data and compute separate rates for various localities.

For these reasons, we urge the Committee to approve the percentage differentials contained in S. 231 and related bills.

COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS

There is one amendment we believe should be added to the pending legislation. This is to guarantee to wage board workers at least the changes in cost of living occurring between wage surveys.

During hearings last year and this, union officials with experience on the National Wage Policy Committee informed Congressional committees of repeated occurrences of 6-5 votes favoring the position of management in Policy Committee deliberations. With justification, they emphasized that these votes demonstrated the desirability of having an impartial chairman appointed by the President.

Late in 1970, however, there was a rare reversal of the pattern. By a 6-5 margin the Policy Committee agreed to recommend cost of living adjustments,