ler General where we believe that the existing law might provide a method of achieving saved grade. I mentioned earlier they, in their decision, did not agree that there was any provision in the law which would permit save grade. Mr. HANLEY. It is my information that the Bureau did not consult with any of the affected employee organizations prior to conducting the surveys which would result in downgradings. It seems to me that consultation in this sense could have helped ease the impact. Was there a reason why? General GREENLIEF. Sir, it may have. It may have eased the impact. The reason why, is that we dealt with the problem through our program managers. We felt that classification is properly a decision of management. We were relying on the assistance of the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force in the classification actions. Mr. HANLEY. Again, it seems that consultation could have provided some input which would have perhaps made this transition a little less agonizing. Mr. HOGAN. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Barton? Mr. BARTON. No questions. Mr. HANLEY. Well, with that, General and Mr. Schulkind, we want to, on behalf of the subcommittee express our appreciation for your testimony this morning, and hopefully, working together, we can resolve this matter, and hopefully the end result will eliminate any semblance of unfairness or inequities. Again, our appreciation for your appearance here this morning. General GREENLIEF. Sir, I appreciate the opportunity to appear. Mr. SCHULKIND. As do I. Mr. HANLEY. Thank you. Our next witness this morning is Dr. Nathan T. Wolkomir, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. Dr. WOLKOMIR. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my sincere regrets that I am late. But we have three hearings all in one day. Mr. HANLEY. It is certainly a pleasure to have you with us this morning. If, for the purpose of the record you would introduce your associate, we will begin. STATEMENT OF NATHAN T. WOLKOMIR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY IRVING GELLER, GENERAL COUNSEL Dr. WOLKOMIR. For the record, my associate on my right is Mr. Irv Geller, general counsel of the National Federation of Federal Employees. Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, my name is Nathan T. Wolkomir. I am president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which is the pioneer and largest of the independent general unions of Federal employees. The NFFE has many locals and members in virtually all Federal departments and agencies. For over 54 years our organization has been promoting the welfare of Federal employees and the public interest. It is to be noted that in the report of recognitions and agreements issued by the Civil Service Commission in November of 1971 NFFE represents National Guard Technicians in many States such as Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Wisconsin, and others. NFFE does have an immediate and direct concern in their conditions of employment. The subcommittee is addressing itself to the subject of position reclassification of Guard technicians to conform with Federal position classification standards. The same considerations which quite properly and reasonably and logically pointed to the need for the legislation bringing these employees into the Federal career service also are operative as they affect the classification rights of these dedicated and skilled workers. The fact of these hearings in themselves bespeak a proper point of view. The skills and the dedication which these employees bring to their tasks need no extended comment from me at this point. You all are fully aware that to a very significant degree the instant readiness, the technical efficiency, the capacity of the National Guard to perform its absolutely vital functions throughout these United States in these critical times is dependent upon the technical skills and the high degree of dedication which these workers bring to their daily tasks. We see the risks to which they are exposed daily. Therefore, it follows inevitably that proper classifications here under consideration not only represent an important step toward giving equality of treatment to this group of employees but are, as well, essential to the effectiveness of the Guard itself. One among many beneficial results of such action from the standpoint of the national interest, will be to stabilize employment, to prevent the loss of skills which the Guard can ill afford to lose, and to further enhance that espirit de corps which is so essential at this particular point in time. These public hearings on the classification problems affecting National Guard technicians by the very nature of their hybrid existence should be called to the attention of this appropriate congressional subcommittee. At our last national convention dozens of resolutions were introduced by our National Guard technician locals which clearly identified the dual type of administrative controls imposed on them. They are subject to the administrative whims of adjutants general normally appointed by Governors of States, and also controlled by general administrative policies issued by the National Guard Bureau in Washington. This Bureau in turn falls back upon Department of Defense policies and regulations. This triumvirate type of control has led to much confusion and political innuendoes. They can only turn to Congress in many cases in order to obtain equal and fair treatment even on minor issues and normal grievances. Some of the proposed legislation for Guard technicians covers requests for universal standards on the wearing of uniforms, quarters allowance, full retirement, medical and dental care, reserve training status, and so forth. The diverse nature of these subjects themselves are an indication of the triumvirate type of administrative controls and the inadequacies of providing a clear-cut administrative system for National Guard tech nicians. Two years ago arbitrary classification actions were held in abeyance because of disregard of Civil Service Commission guidelines. The moratorium is now lifted, and we must again be on guard to prevent arbitrary actions due to Office of Management and Budget ceiling cuts and grade controls. Mr. Chairman, I want to express to you and to the members of the subcommittee, the appreciation of the National Federation of Federal Employees for your initiative and concern on the classification issues here articulated. I know that I speak also for all of the many National Guard technicians members of the NFFE especially in extending our thanks to you and also in expressing the hope that these sessions will provide equity and fairness to classification actions. Advancement to higher positions in the National Guard program is contingent upon having Guard membership, and in some cases to officer rank in the Guard. This is a definite discrimination against the many male and female employees in the program. All of these factors influence classification actions in the Guard technician field regardless of the criteria used by the Civil Service Commission in classification standards. As stated so aptly by you, Mr. Chairman, "some 8,000-10,000 positions are scheduled to be downgraded and an equal number will be upgraded. *** This is one of the most massive reclassifications in the history of the Classification Act." In order to bring into proper perspective much of what is transpiring, reference should be made to several factors that of necessity will influence prospective classifications. Since the passage of the National Guard Technician Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-486), the present work force, to the best of our source of knowledge, is operating under 82 percent of the old approximate 42,800 manpower strength. This has added responsibilities and workloads for all Guard technicians. Responsibility is a criterion used in classification actions. Public Law 92-119 signed into law on August 13, 1971, amended section 709 of title 32, United States Code, relating to appropriations for the National Guard and to National Guard technicians respectively as follows: "SEC. 2. Subsection (h) of section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: (h) In no event shall the number of technicians employed under this section at any one time exceed 53,100, except that the number of technicians so employed may not exceed 49,200 during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1971." In view of the expansion of National Guard technician responsibilities due to the demilitarization of the Vietnam effort, a careful examination of the work expansion is essential. First permit us to examine recent USAF preliminary moves in this direction in accordance with their reorganization policies and releases. It is unfortunate that the Army is less cooperative in its consultation and releases. Attachment 1 lists the realinements and the ANG manpower assigned versus authorizations for the 150th T.F. groups. We call your attention to paragraph 4 of page 1 of the attachment. Extensive cross training will be required, with on-board personnel carrying the load. This means more airplanes to handle, more logistical support, and added responsibility. This has classification impact of great importance. Proper classification is hampered by the restrictive nature of memorandums issued by Maj. Gen. Francis S. Greenlief, Chief of the National Guard Bureau and addressed to all Adjutants General. We quote this memo in full because of its impact on classification: Subject: Requests for technician waivers. 10 January 1972. The Adjutants General of all States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia: 1. Reference NGT letter,4 September 1970, subject as above. 2. The National Guard Bureau continues to receive numerous requests for technician waivers. These requests range from waiving the military grade requirements specified for the technician position to authorization for assigning or reassigning technicians to positions incompatible with their military assignment. As indicated in our 4 September 1970, letter, we cannot honor such requests. 3. Our requirements in this matter stem from Senate Report No. 1446 which accompanied, and was the basis for passage of, The National Guard Technician Act of 1968 (PL 90-486). To further emphasize this requirement, the Senate Committee stated in that Report: "The concept of the full-time civilian technician program is that his civilian work will be performed in the same unit in which he holds a mobilization assignment. In other words, the technician would perform his civilian work, his training duty, and be mobilized to active duty in the same unit." 4. It is essential that we maintain a balance between our officer and enlisted technicians. We must also insure that, in doing so, technicians are assigned to compatible military positions and are responsive and available to their unit upon mobilization. 5. I solicit your cooperation in this matter. FRANCIS S. GREENLIEF, Major General, USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau. Note in particular paragraph 3 of this January 10, 1972, directive. It is requested that "his civilian work will be performed in the same unit in which he holds a mobilization assignment etc." In addition, paragraph 4 requests that "a balance be maintained between officer and enlisted technicians." Although seemingly persuasive and operational in philosophy it becomes most restrictive in both the classification and promotion aspects for all technicians. I will illustrate using the 150th TFGP and NGB from New Mexico by way of example. (1) Out of 114 technicians authorized, 97 are assigned, approximately 77 are under Federal Statute, 20 are operating under State control and thus don't meet the paragraphs 3 and 4 references just mentioned. These 97 are more limited in their civilian assignments in order to meet the balance required and compatibility with their joint assignments. Classification of position and promotions become secondary considerations. They don't necessarily, when called to duty, operate in the same unit. The 20 State technicians stay behind. The chart here illustrates the comparison between a similar squadron operating under the air technician category versus the military assignments. Note the (2) Much is made of compatability with military requirements and a comparison should be drawn. following Personnel Chart comparing National Guard vs. Military Authorizations for similar assignments. NOTE: Under 150th Combat Support Sq Undet 188th TFS *One position from AR&R assigned to Quality Control (T.O. Clerk) one position from Phase Maintenance 1 8 28 24 18 13 1 74 63 55 1 0 0 1 I eight and 302 assigned to the similar squadron in the military setup 114 airmen and two officers assigned to the NGB, as compared to the I just call your particular attention to the two bottom figures of for similar aircraft. of approximately 20 aircraft. We speak of the F-100C responsibility. will ensue when the voluntary enlistments and Vietnam demilitarizaForce 100's. None of the people assigned to this are called to duty. the Guard unit whereas eight officers and 302 airmen are authorized We wonder what further contaminations and work responsibilities In addition, the Army funds a detachment for their use of Air craft whereas the 302 military technicians take care of one squadron for military units. The 114 ANG's take care of approximately 46 airIt is to be noted that two officers and 114 airmen are authorized for |