the employees are paid little money indeed, but sometimes they have to wait 3 to 6 weeks to get their pay.

We have complained about this, and as I pointed out, not only do they have to wait a long time to be paid, but there is a continual turnover because of the low wages paid to these so-called PX employees, and nonappropriated fund employees that are working for the Federal Government. Of course, when you have this constant turnover, it actually is costing the Federal Government additional moneys. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your contribution in highlighting the discrepancies in the present operation.

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

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness for this afternoon is Mr. Richard I. Wevodau, the legislative director of the National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD I. WEVODAU, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE AND GENERAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES

Mr. WEVODAU. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and present our views on pending legislation affecting the rates of compensation of wage board employees.

For the record, my name is Richard I. Wevodau, and I am legislative director for the National Association of Post Office and General Services Maintenance Employees, AFL-CIO. We have formal recognition for the 16,000 employees of the Public Buildings Services of General Services Administration.

At the offset, I would like to say we favor and support S. 231 over S. 315 introduced by the distinguished chairman.

We say this, and hope that the chairman will take no offense after we explain our reasons. Ours will not be a lengthy statement. We feel that the statement given by brother John Griner covered all aspects of the problem in an excellent manner, but we would like to touch on a few highlights.

There has been a vast improvement in the wage board system since 1965. But now, all that is good in the system should be enacted into law, so that there is a statutory basis for what is now general practice.

It is not a case of asking for any special rights or privileges for this group of employees, but rather elimination of any opportunity to circumvent any provision of the regulation-because it is a regulation and not the law of the land.

To set the stage for our testimony we would like to go on record as favoring a national wage rate with cost of living adjustments based on a statewide area.

Our testimony will indicate the reasons for this stand. The prime reason for taking this position is the very nature of the Coordinated Federal Wage System. In some areas of the country there are no industries with comparable positions to make a comparison for a prevailing rate.

In other antiunion sections of the country, wages paid in the private sector do not reflect a true prevailing rate on a national scale. In the postal service we are a strong believer in "equal pay for equal work.”

Also, in many cases the work standards of a wage board employee are more stringent than his counterpart in the private sector.

We find no quarrel with the basic concepts of the Coordinated Federal Wage System, but feel that, as we said earlier, it should be enacted into law so that it has some teeth in it.

One of the great fallacies of the area wage concept is that those living in areas where the cost of living is the greatest receive the highest

wages.

This is not true. January 1971 figures show that for a family of four, intermediate budget costs in New York City are $12,134 per year; in Boston, Mass., $12,037 per year; in Hartford, Conn., $11,854 per year and in Buffalo, N.Y., $11,425 per year.

The latest GSA wage survey for New York City shows a grade I, step 2 employee receiving $2.88 per hour.

In Boston that same employee receives $3.02 per hour; in Hartford $2.62 per hour and in Buffalo $2.80 per hour.

Therefore, you can see that the cost of living in an area has little to do with the area wage paid.

We prefer S. 231 over S. 315 for several reasons. One is the establishment of a 10-step wage grade as outlined in 5343 8 (C) of S. 231.

Presently, with the three step principle an employee reaches top step in about 4 years. This means that if he eventually becomes a 25or 30-year employee, he has no pay incentive to look forward to, other than any additional increases brought about by a wage survey.

Another is the night differential outlined in 5343 10 (B) of the same bill. We are a strong believer in the theory that the night is made for sleeping-not working. If an employee is required to work during normal sleeping hours, he should be compensated.

We would, however advocate a 10-percent differential between 3 p.m. and midnight and a 15 percent differential between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. In private industry the figures average 13.5 percent for the period between 3 p.m. and midnight and 18.7 percent for the midnight to 8 a.m. time period.

Due to the difficulty we have experienced with the Civil Service Commission on job ranking appeals we are leery of the role played by them under the job grading system outlined in section 5346. We feel that this would be better let to an outside independent agency.

We would also at this time respectfully request a rider or insertion in the bill to correct two glaring inequities in the Wage Board System. One is the present method of setting rates. These pay rates are based on R. & I. (repair and improvement) rather than construction rates. Many times GSA wage board employees are called upon to perform what we consider as major construction jobs, but are paid at a lesser rate under the guise of minor improvement or renovation.

For instance, in Kansas City, Mo., in May of 1970, a renovation job was done on the Federal Office Building because of Housing and Urban Development moving into the building.

The estimated cost of this project was $600,000. GSA wage board employees working on this renovation were paid the regular R. & I. rates since GSA classed this as a minor improvement.

The other problem area is this. At present there exists within GSA a group of employees known as the "4th hour" or "uncommon tour of duty" employees.

They primarily serve in a relief capacity. They are not subject to the midnight to midnight workday, and the Monday through Friday or 5 consecutive workdays granted other wage board employees under title 5 USC 6101.

This individual could conceivably work from midnight last night until 8 a.m. this morning, report back to work at 8 p.m. this evening, work until 4 a.m. tomorrow morning, which would constitute 12 hours of work in a 24-hour period and not be entitled to overtime.

In some instances by this system an employee in one pay period has worked 48 hours during the time period of Sunday through Saturday, which is the GSA service week, and 32 hours the next week and has been denied overtime because the total work hours for the 2-week pay period was only 80 hours.

We request that for an "uncommon tour of duty" employee the 24-hour period comprising the work day begin with the first hour that he works.

This would require an amendment to the appropriate section of title 5, U.S.C. 6101.

We also respectfully request that some consideration be given to establishing within the Coordinated Federal Wage System a pay scale for construction work to be paid when any "minor improvement" exceeded $25,000.

We again want to thank you for this opportunity to appear and would be glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. You may summarize your statement, if you wish. Mr. WEVODAU. Mr. Chairman, we represent a small part of the total wage board employees. We represent the Public Building Services employees of the General Services Administration.

These are the employees who maintain the buildings and equipment occupied by GSA.

To set the stage for my remarks, I would like to say we favor a national wage rate with cost of living adjustments, based on a statewide area.

The reason for this, being as Mr. Hampton pointed out this morning, the surveys that are conducted, wage surveys, deal with private industry, supposedly union negotiated contracts, and most of these companies now over the past few years have followed a trend toward a national wage scale rather than an area wage scale.

In the Post Office Department, we are a firm believer in the idea of equal pay for equal work.

Our pay system provides equal amounts of pay on a nationwide basis, however, we would like to see a cost of living adjustment entered into with that.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you adjust that cost of living thing on an area basis?

Mr. WEVODAU. Statewide. In conducting a wage survey, wage board survey, it becomes rather difficult because in many areas of the country, which are antiunion, you have no union negotiated contracts where wages were negotiated.

Also for this reason, wages paid in the private sector, that is in these areas, they do not reflect a true prevailing rate, and in many cases, the work standards prescribed by GSA are much more stringent.

He may be required to do much more in the same job classification than any other industry. We find no quarrel with the concept of the Federal wage system, but we feel it should be enacted into law so there are some teeth in it.

One of the great fallacies of the system is that it seems if you live in a high cost of living area, you will be paid a higher wage.

The figures indicate that in New York City, that that city has now become the highest cost of living area in the country, but yet in Boston, which is not the first, a wage board employee there enjoys a higher pay rate, so the concept that if you live in a high cost of living area, your wage will be higher, this assumption does not hold true.

We also like the idea of 10 steps, because theoretically an employee could reach this top level in a year and a half period, and if he becomes a 25- or 30-year employee, he will receive no additional pay increase other than he would receive through the wage board system.

As you know, in the Post Office, we have a 12-step system, and we would also like the idea of a night differential.

I personally believe that night was made for sleeping and not for working, and if I have to work at night, I feel there should be some additional compensation.

I would like to advocate a 10-percent differential. If we are truly going to follow the prevailing rates in private industry, as it was pointed out, many companies in the private sector do not work night schedules, so there is no prevailing rate there to follow, but in the areas where you do have companies working at night, the time period from 3 p.m. to midnight, the average figure for night differential is about 1312 percent, and 18.7 percent for the midnight to 8 a.m. time period.

There is also something else that enters into the wage board schedule.

The pay rates that are employed are based on maintenance and improvement or repair and improvement, and over the last 10 years GSA has gone more and more into doing their own renovation and improvement of buildings.

They will sometimes hire craftsmen from outside GSA if the job is large enough, and our GSA wage board employees are working right along side these employees, doing the same type of work, and in many cases receiving less money.

GSA covers up with the explanation that what they are doing is only minor improvement, yet in May 1970, in Kansas City, Mo., there was a $600,000 major improvement on the Federal building there due to another Government agency moving in.

We feel for this kind of so-called renovation, there should be an in-grade wage scale to cover something along this line.

Basically that is my statement, and I thank you for your time. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your statement.

Mr. WEVODAU. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The third witness this afternoon is Mr. Vincent J. Paterno, president of the Association of Civilian Technicians, and he is accompanied by Mr. Jack H. Reagor, vice president of the Wage Board of the Association of Civilian Technicians.

STATEMENT OF VINCENT J. PATERNO, PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. JACK H. REAGOR, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WAGE BOARD OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS

Mr. PATERNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reagor is here from Montana, and because of the size of our organization, he is still a wage board employee, and he will not be able to return as easily as I will be.

I would like to summarize my particular position, since I will be able to return and discuss this with the Staff.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: It is appreciated by the approximately 4,000 National Guard technician Wage Grade employees in 18 States that our organization represents, that we have been given this opportunity to present our views on Wage Grade legislative requirements.

Our category of employee, though only accepted into Federal status on January 1, 1969 by Public Law 90-486, has long been under the wage setting system now under legislative review. Our membership covers better than 30 wage survey areas with many areas in some single bargaining units.

We have career and promotion fields that move our type of employees back and forth between General Schedule and Wage Grade classifications that provide extreme difficulties because of the variance of systems.

We have encountered all of the problems of the system and have some that are unique to National Guard employees because of legislative and administrative restrictions to equal treatment with other Federal employees.

At the outset we must propose support of legislation that will provide a 10-step longevity raise procedure that rewards civil servants for their tenure, loyalty, and expertise.

The Government must not, in our view, treat its public servants as labor commodities. Government service must be rewarded with more than corporate impersonality. The service given, be it blue collar or white, must be supported with dignity and pride.

Excellence, and tenure should be marked by appropriate gains in a career Government service.

The step pay system allows the remarkable flexibility to permit rank-in-man to equate with rank-in-job standards. It allows for pay for work to be balanced with rewards for long service and the measure of experience enhanced skills.

The step pay system, scheduled as it is in the classified area, could forestall the imminent present need for collectively bargained wages, and if tied in with other needed corrections, give the Government a reasonable long term view to good labor-management relations.

It is sad that our Federal managers move always further toward government employment in a hiring hall attitude, except as it pertains to certain professional classes and executive schedules.