Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

forms. In general two weeks notice was required before a return could be effected.

The guaranteed position was in the same office the employee had left making it possible for him to check with his former supervisor

on the possibility of retaining his current grade and salary. This enabled early warning of problem cases. In general, when the CLC -personnel office contacted another agency to arrange a return, CLC informed the agency of the President's message urging favorable treatment of returning employees. This message was one of the few tangible aids to the placement assistance program that had been successfully negotiated. Yet, because it had no force of law, it was ignored from time to time in some agencies, and in particular at the Department of Agriculture. More than 25% of the failures to retain current salary occured with employees returning to Agriculture. Twice as many employees lost salary returning to Agriculture as the next nearest agency.

e Other Events

The major event was the finalization of plans for the Office of Economic Stabilization to clean up outstanding matters and to write a series of historical working papers. The personnel ceiling for OES was fixed at 150, providing job opportunities with a six month expiration date for 12% of the original 1,008 employees. (Some jobs went to summer research assistants in the history effort.) Selection for short-term employment with the OES was based on one of three criteria:

-contribution to the history/archives effort
-knowledge of matters which would carry over beyond June

30 (personnel, accounting, general counsel, etc.)
-participation in the Conversion Work Group, as was committed
by McLane at the creation of the placement assistance pro-

gram.

The Work Group grew to 47 people by June, all of whom had focused their attention on exposing job opportunities for other nd employees. About one half of the group were career employees with

return rights. Of the remaining 24, nine moved on to other jobs on June 30 while 15 remained in the OES.

Results

The measure of success of the placement assistance program is stated simply by the number of people who found jobs. Few of the early conceptual approaches to providing assistance matured; the

conversion of Emergency Indefinites failed to get OMB and CSC support; retention of grade and salary was voluntary, and interviews were hard to schedule. Yet, through the combination of hard work and constant, aggressive pushing by the Conversion Work Group there were only 64 people (6.3%) who wanted jobs after June 30 without either a job or a solid offer. Exhibit 5 shows the exact statistics.

[blocks in formation]

The table shows that 13.2% of the employees were placed in April, many going to FEO. Many other Emergency Indefinites also went to FEO with one source estimating nearly 100 CLC employees being hired by FEO. Nearly 50 percent of the career employees elected not to return to their home agency. This can be attributed to several causes: potential loss of salary, personal problems with old supervisor, change in job emphasis, etc.

Almost 10.4% of the employees took jobs outside the federal government including jobs in corporations, universities, and state government. This was, in many ways, a surprising result since it had been difficult all through the Program to get people to interview for jobs outside government. Special efforts were extended to place higher grade secretaries and low scoring entry level personnel in the private sector with mixed results. Many people did not want to leave the federal government because of the extensive investment in retirement time or because of the relative security and higher federal salaries at the mid-level positions.

More than 7% of CLC employees neither wanted nor actively

1:

sought jobs. These included students, working wives, several pregnant women, and some retired persons. This was a matter of personal choice that was reviewed with each person at some point during the assistance program.

Committee members were never a consideration since all held jobs in the private sector or at a university.

Finally, 36 employees had not yet made up their minds among various opportunities or were awaiting final notification of the Civil Service Commission that they were hired. Most of these people were employed within the first three weeks of July.

Of the 121 employees returning to their home agency, approximately 30% retained their current grade and salary while another 50% retained salary only. About 20% (24 employees) lost salary, usually because they had received two promotions while at CLC.

In conclusion, then, the numbers show that the placement assistance program was a success. It was a success as well in showing CLC employees that senior management cared about what was happening to them and was grateful for the both the dedication and professional spirit with which the first peacetime experiment with mandatory economic controls was carried out.

EDITOR'S NOTE
ON TWO PAPERS
CONCERNING
FOOD PRICE
CONTROLS

Throughout the Economic Stabilization Program, the food industry received special treatment and attention. Raw agricultural products were always exempt from controls. Under Phases II and III, mandatory regulations were applied to the food processing industry and to the food wholesaling and retailing sector. Price ceilings were placed on red meat products in the Spring of 1973 and removed on September 10 of that year, when special food regulations went into effect. Throughout the Program, non-regulatory actions in the food area were a part of the policy of the Council.

Two papers dealing with this controversial area have been prepared by independent contractors with special expertise in food price controls policy and operation. The first paper, Regulation of Food Prices: Limitation and Possibilities,was prepared under the auspices of the MITRE Corporation, primarily by Mr. Reginald Brown, formerly Deputy Administrator of the Cost of Living Council Office of Food During Phase IV of the Economic Stabilization Program. The second paper, Food and Agricultural Policy in 1971– 1974: Reflections on Controls and Their Impact," was prepared through the Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, by Dr. Glenn Nelson, formerly Branch Chief in the Policy Analysis Division, Office of Food, during Phase IV of the Program. These documents will be available through the National Archives as well as through the two respective contractors.

« PreviousContinue »