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.

(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.

STATEMENT OF LUTHER C. STEWARD-Resumed

Senator LONG. About what percentage of Federal employees do you believe ever reach a supervisory position?

Mr. STEWARD. Well, if you include in supervisory positions, not only those who have some direct and ordinary supervisory authority, but the top scientists and technicians, not to exceed 12 percent, I would say is a close approximation.

Senator LONG. Someone told me that only about 5 percent ever reach a supervisory capacity. Do you know what he might have in mind when he states that number?

Mr. STEWARD. Well, I am getting on down to where you have a file room with one person in nominal charge and two assistants. My estimate for that reason is very liberal.

Senator LONG. If you tried to figure in persons who supervise as many as say 8 or 10 people

Mr. STEWARD. Then you would cut it down very sharply.

Senator LONG. Do you know if it would be to about 5 percent? Mr. STEWARD. Oh, yes, it would be cut down very sharply. Senator LONG. Thank you very much.

All right, Mr. Hallbeck, proceed.

STATEMENT OF E. C. HALLBECK, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS

Mr. HALLBECK. My name is E. C. Hallbeck, and I am the legislative representative of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks, representing between 90,000 and 100,000 clerks employed in first-, second-, and third-class post offices.

It is my understanding that this subcommittee is considering all bills relating to increases in salary and amendments to the Reclassification Acts affecting Federal employee and employees in the field service of the Post Office Department.

At the outset, I want to specifically endorse S. 558 which was introduced by Senator Johnston, chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, for himself and Senators Langer, O'Conor, and Baldwin. This bill would provide horizontal increases of $650 per annum for all employees in the field service of the Post Office Department with increases of 30 cents per hour for all employees paid on an hourly or part-time basis.

We believe this legislation is readily justified on the basis of increases in the cost of living which have taken place in the past few years. Measured in terms of purchasing power, the wages of post office clerks today, based on the formulas of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United State Department of Labor, lack $13.28 per week of being equal to the wage received in 1939.

The average annual salary for post office clerks and supervisors for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, was $2,848. Public Law No. 900 of the Eightieth Congress added the sum of $450 per annum, making an average annual salary for post office clerks and supervisors as of today of approximately $3,298. This is equal to $63.42 per week.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, the average weekly salary multiplied by 0.819

plus $7.31, equals the net spendable weekly earnings after allowance for income and social security taxes for a family of four. $63.42 multiplied by 0.819 equals $51.94, plus $7.31 equals $59.25 as the average net spendable weekly earnings of a post office clerk or supervisor with a family of four.

To adjust present weekly earnings with the same earnings expressed in 1939 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current consumers price index is divided by the 1939 index. The consumers price index for March 15, 1949, the latest figure available, was 169.6. The consumers price index for the year 1939 was 99.4. 169.6 divided by 99.4 equals 170.6, the ratio between the consumers price index for March 1949 and the year 1939.

The average net spendable weekly earnings of $59.25 divided by 170.6 equals $34.02, the net spendable weekly earnings of post office clerks and supervisors based on a family of four persons in March of 1949 expressed in 1939 dollars.

The average annual salary of post office clerks and supervisors in 1939 reduced to a weekly basis was $41.63. $41.63 less $34.02 equals the actual dollar difference between 1939 and March 1949, or $7.61 per week or $395.72 per annum. However, to obtain the amount necessary to equal 1939 purchasing power, the sum of $7.61 must be multiplied by the ratio 170.6 which equals $13.28 per week or $690.56 per annum.

This is true despite the fact that the Congress has, in recent years, enacted legislation in an effort to alleviate this condition. In all instances, however, the increases that have been provided have been both too little and too late and, as a result, postal employees have been going further and further into debt with each passing year. Bearing in mind that upward salary adjustments in private industry usually provide for retroactive pay to the end of the last contract, the Federal Government should never lag in protecting its own employees against increasing living costs. Unfortunately, however, it has not worked out that way.

A recent survey in the city of Seattle, Wash., on the financial status of post office employees, indicated the following: 23 percent of all postal employees in Seattle hold part-time positions in addition to their postal employment; 37 percent of the employees have wives who are obliged to work. This indicates that three out of every five postal employees find present wages so inadequate that they are forced to secure additional employment either for themselves or members of their families. Despite this additional employment, 77 percent of the employees have been forced to draw on their savings and 60 percent have cashed war savings bonds, and an additional 45 percent have had to borrow a total of $611,715 during the past year.

Thus, it will be seen that at least 95 percent of the employees of the Seattle post office were forced to supplement their postal wages in one form or another.

I am aware that the Post Office Department has recommended against the enactment of a bill before this committee, S. 558, for a number of reasons, principally due to the estimated cost. I further note that the Department does not now approve further flat increases on the grounds of equity. While failing to approve flat increases, they have not suggested an alternative proposal nor has there been any indication that such an alternative proposal was even being considered.

The Department refers to inequities existent on the effective date of Public Law No. 134 or brought about since its enactment, but in no case do they suggest a remedy for such inequities. However, I fail to note any suggestion on the part of the Department that further increases are not justified. As a matter of fact, the Postmaster General has, on numerous occasions, expressed the thought that present postal wages are inadequate. Speaking before the convention of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks in Miami, Fla., on August 23d of last year, the Postmaster General stated:

The matter of increased salary for the postal people was pending before the Congress for many months. It finally resulted in legislation providing for a $450 per annum increase to regular employees, 25 cents increase to those employees paid on an hourly rate, and a 20-percent increase to all fourth-class postmasters. In my opinion, the salary increases were not sufficient to cope with the increased cost of living.

I mention this subject because there have been some statements made to the effect that neither President Truman nor the Postmaster General were in favor of increased salaries. This, of course, was not true. The President, in his budget message, directed that something be done to decrease the cost of living and he clearly pointed out that if nothing was done to reduce the cost of living, then salaries would have to be increased.

I testified before a committee of the Congress to the effect that I, personally, would prefer, and I feel that every postal employee would likewise prefer, a reduction in the cost of living in the amount of four, five or six hundred dollars per annum rather than a like increase in salary. I pointed out that postal employees got a $400 per annum increase on January 1, 1946, only to see this increase dissipated in the increased cost of living. When you received these increases on July 1, 1945 and January 1, 1946, and had the cost of living been pegged as of those dates, you surely would not have advocated further increased salaries later on. The living costs were not pegged but they increased at a higher rate than the salaries provided and the increase that you received on July 1, 1948 will soon be dissipated unless something is done to stop this increase in the cost of living. It does no good to give you increased salaries in any given amount if the cost of living increases at the same rate. You and I all know that the last increase you obtained was far less than your increased living costs had been since you got your last salary increase.

You will note that the Postmaster General stated, and I repeat, "You and I all know that the last increase you obtained was far less than your increased living costs had been since you got your last salary increase."

Senator LONG. I take it that you do not agree with the Postmaster General, then, that it is better to try to reduce the cost of living than it is to raise the postal salaries.

Mr. HALLBECK. Yes; I do. Had they done that, I would agree with it, but I think, Senator, you will agree that actually the cost of living has not decreased.

Senator LONG. Well, that is true. Do you feel that since it has not decreased

Mr. HALLBECK. If there were ever a time when the postal service were leveled off with the cost of living and then frozen, I think not only I but every postal employee and every man that works for a living would agree to it, but I submit we are in a poor position to agree to something like that when we are down at the bottom and costs are up at the top.

That, as far as we are concerned, is no time to freeze things. We have got to level off before the freeze begins, or we are going to suffer. Senator LONG. Well, now, I realize that a lot of the Post Office personnel feel that the post office is not designed to be a profit-making organization, and I am certainly in accord with that premise providing